Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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