MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Supreme Court: Counter-Claim Not Barred by Notice Requirement under Carriage by Road Act, 2007

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi, May 1, 2023: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that a counter-claim filed by the appellant, ESSEMM Logistics, in response to a recovery suit is not barred by the notice requirement under the Carriage by Road Act, 2007. The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice V. Ramasubramanian.

The case pertained to an original suit filed by DARCL Logistics Limited, the plaintiff, seeking the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,09,53,847/- with interest, alleging non-payment by ESSEMM Logistics as per 530 bills raised during a specific period. In its written statement, the appellant filed a counter-claim of Rs. 13,04,00,000/- with interest, citing losses incurred due to a business opportunity, damage to reputation, and idling of men, machine, and overheads.

The central issue before the Court was the applicability of the notice requirement for loss or damage to consignment under the Carriage by Road Act, 2007. The defendant argued that the counter-claim did not pertain to loss or damage to the consignment and therefore the notice requirement did not apply.

Analyzing the relevant provisions, the Court observed that Section 16 of the Carriage by Road Act, 2007 mandated a notice in cases of loss or damage to the consignment. However, the counter-claim in question did not involve loss or damage to the consignment but rather loss of business opportunity, reputation, and idling of resources.

The Court emphasized that Section 16 of the Act only applies to suits and legal proceedings relating to loss or damage to the consignment and not to claims of a different nature. It further held that the courts below had erroneously rejected the counter-claim under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, which deals with the rejection of a plaint, as being barred by Section 16 of the Carriage by Road Act.

Setting aside the impugned orders, the Supreme Court directed the lower court to proceed with both the suit and the counter-claim in accordance with the law. The Court also clarified that no costs would be awarded in the matter.

This judgment clarifies the scope of the notice requirement under the Carriage by Road Act, 2007 and ensures that counter-claims for losses unrelated to consignments are not unfairly barred. The ruling provides clarity and guidance to litigants and legal professionals dealing with similar issues under the Act.

ESSEMM LOGISTICS  VS  DARCL LOGISTICS LIMITED & ANR.

Latest Legal News