Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.28 seconds)Sanjana Agarwal vs Namoshivai Apparels Private Ltd on 22 September, 2023
4. Briefly, the facts are that the Appellant/Plaintiff, as the proprietor
of a firm called Molmek Enterprises [hereinafter referred to as
"Molmek"], filed a Suit for Recovery being CS (Comm) No.324/2022
captioned as Ms. Sanjana Agarwal v. Namoshivai Apparels Private
Limited before the learned Commercial Court against the
Respondent/Defendant, i.e. Namoshivai Apparels Private Limited
[hereinafter referred to as "NAPL"]. Both Molmek and NAPL are
engaged in online trading of items like garments, electronics and general
products. In August, 2018, Molmek and NAPL entered into an
agreement for the supply by Molmek to NAPL, pursuant to which,
supplies were made during the period from August, 2018 to February,
2019. In pursuance of this arrangement, Molmek supplied electronic
goods to the NAPL against credit notes and invoices from August, 2018
to February, 2019, maintaining a running account in its books.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
M/S Patil Automation Private Limited vs Rakheja Engineers Private Limited on 17 August, 2022
"11. Having stated so, it is difficult to agree with the proposition that
the plaintiff has the absolute choice and right to paralyse Section 12-
A of the CC Act by making a prayer for urgent interim relief.
Camouflage and guise to bypass the statutory mandate of pre-
litigation mediation should be checked when deception and falsity is
apparent or established. The proposition that the commercial courts
do have a role, albeit a limited one, should be accepted, otherwise it
would be up to the plaintiff alone to decide whether to resort to the
procedure under Section 12-A of the CC Act. An "absolute and
unfettered right" approach is not justified if the pre-institution
mediation under Section 12-A of the CC Act is mandatory, as held by
this Court in Patil Automation [Patil Automation (P) Ltd. v. Rakheja
Engineers (P) Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCC (Civ) 545].
Section 34 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Harish Mansukhani vs Ashok Jain on 19 November, 2008
18.1 It was contended that there was no evidence to prove the delivery
of goods to Molmek against the 5 disputed invoices. One of the
witnesses of NAPL (CCW2) himself admitted that there is no document
showing the receipt of the goods by Molmek. The learned Counsel for
Molmek relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
Harish Mansukhani vs. Ashok Jain7 to submit that merely raising of a
bill and showing the same in a statement of account is not good evidence
without establishing the delivery of the goods.
Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs K.S. Infraspace Llp on 4 October, 2019
25.1 The Supreme Court in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. K.S.
Infraspace LLP9 case has held that the statement of object and reasons
for the enactment of the CC Act was the early and speed resolution of
the commercial disputes and thus, there was an amendment made and
fast track procedure set in place by the CC Act. The relevant extract is
set out below:
Om Prakash vs Amit Choudhary & Ors on 25 July, 2019
14. The learned Commercial Court placed reliance on Sabiha Sultana
& Ors. v. Ahmad Aziz & Anr.1, Om Prakash v. Amit Choudhary &
Ors.2, Ishwar Bhai C. Patel v. Harihar Behera & Anr.3, and
Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao & Anr.4, to record that the party setting up a
claim must prove its case, and an adverse inference can be drawn if a
party does not lead evidence or enter the witness box.
Iswar Bhai C. Patel & Bachu Bhai Patel vs Harihar Behera & Anr on 16 March, 1999
14. The learned Commercial Court placed reliance on Sabiha Sultana
& Ors. v. Ahmad Aziz & Anr.1, Om Prakash v. Amit Choudhary &
Ors.2, Ishwar Bhai C. Patel v. Harihar Behera & Anr.3, and
Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao & Anr.4, to record that the party setting up a
claim must prove its case, and an adverse inference can be drawn if a
party does not lead evidence or enter the witness box.