Order Taking Cognizance Must Reflect Application Of Mind; Section 197 CrPC Sanction Mandatory For Prosecuting Public Servants: Karnataka High Court Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Partially Against Specific Defendants Or Properties; Limitation Is A Triable Issue: Telangana High Court Employee Having National Trade Certificate & Prior Experience To Be Treated As 'Highly Skilled' For Compensation: Orissa High Court Insurance Company Entitled To Subpoena Investigating Officer For Vehicle Records When Insured Is Untraceable: Madras High Court Seller's Fraudulent Conduct & Non-Disclosure Of Mortgage Justify Refund Of Advance Sale Consideration: Kerala High Court Complaint Under Section 138 NI Act Filed By Partner On Behalf Of Firm Maintainable Even Without Specific Authorization Letter: Gujarat High Court Extension Of Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act Requires Public Prosecutor's Independent Report, Not Just IO's Request: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orissa Grama Panchayats Act | No Bar On Rescheduling No-Confidence Motion Meeting Before Its Commencement: High Court Non-Preparation Of ‘Nil’ Seizure List After Searching Raiding Officer Not Fatal To NDPS Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Registration Of Trademark Confers Exclusive Right To Sue For Infringement Irrespective Of Whether Mark Is In Use: Delhi High Court Presence Of Magistrate Not Mandatory For Recording Dying Declaration; Conviction Can Be Based On DD Recorded By Police: Bombay High Court Routine Bank Transfers Between Spouses For Daily Needs Are Gratuitous Payments, Not Recoverable As Entrusted Funds: Kerala High Court Clerical Lapses Under Work Pressure Amount To Dereliction Of Duty, Not Crime: Madras High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Deputy BDO Burden Of Proving Sale Deed Is Bona Fide Lies On Beneficiary If Executant Is Illiterate Or Vulnerable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Employee Cannot Take Advantage Of Own Delay; Employer Not Required To Preserve Disciplinary Records For Eternity: Bombay High Court Deadline To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Trade Marks Rules Is Directory, Registrar Can Extend Time Under Section 131: Bombay High Court Exclusion Of Interest In Insurance Policy Is Conditional; Insurer Must Plead & Prove Employer's Failure To Comply With Act To Avoid Liability: Kerala High Court Practicing Lawyer Entitled To Interim Maintenance From Husband If Income Is Insufficient To Maintain Standard Of Living: Orissa High Court Section 138 NI Act Offences Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Revision Or Appeal: Madras High Court Unsuccessful Party Seeking Post-Award Interim Relief Under Section 9 Faces 'Higher Threshold', Must Show Rare & Compelling Circumstances: Bombay High Court

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