Kerala High Court Denies Relief To Petitioner Suppressing Facts, Orders Enquiry Into Allotment Of Govt Scheme Houses On Puramboke Land Candidate Missing Physical Test For Minor Illness Has No Enforceable Right To Rescheduling: Supreme Court Prolonged Incarceration And Parity Constitute Valid Grounds For Regular Bail: Supreme Court Accused In Cheque Bounce Cases Cannot File Evidence-In-Chief By Affidavit Under Section 145 NI Act: Orissa High Court Borrowers Have No Right To Personal Hearing Before Fraud Classification, But Full Forensic Audit Report Must Be Supplied: Supreme Court Pendency Of Matrimonial Dispute With General Allegations Not A Valid Ground To Deny Public Employment: Allahabad High Court Minimum Five Persons Mandatory To Prove 'Preparation For Dacoity' Under Section 399 IPC: Gujarat High Court Suit For Specific Performance Not Maintainable Without Prayer To Set Aside Termination Of Agreement: Madras High Court Trial Court Must Indicate Material Forming Basis Of Charge, Mechanical Framing Of Charges Impermissible: Madhya Pradesh High Court Voluntary Retirement Deemed Accepted If Positive Order Of Refusal Is Not Communicated Within Notice Period: Supreme Court Court Cannot Convict One Accused And Acquit Another On Same Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Due To Unreliable Last-Seen Evidence And Principle Of Parity 138 NI Act | Accused Cannot Rebut Presumption Of Legally Enforceable Debt At Pre-Trial Stage In Cheque Bounce Cases: Supreme Court More Meritorious PWD Candidates From Reserved Categories Can Claim Unreserved PWD Posts In Open Competition: Supreme Court Meritorious Reserved Candidates Can Claim Unreserved Horizontal Vacancies Based On Merit: Supreme Court Employee Not Entitled To Gratuity Until Conclusion Of Both Departmental And Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Stamp Duty Recovery Against Legal Heirs Is Strictly Limited To The Extent Of Inherited Estate: Allahabad High Court Single Lathi Blow On Head During Sudden Altercation Amounts To Culpable Homicide Under Section 304 Part II IPC, Not Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Habeas Corpus Maintainable For Child Custody Against Father; Cannot Be Dismissed Merely Due To Alternate Remedy: Allahabad High Court "Plea Of Ignorance In Digital Era Inexcusable": Punjab & Haryana HC Imposes Rs 10K Cost On Accused For Hiding Prior Bail Dismissal Discrepancies In Name And Age On Monthly Pass Fail To Establish 'Bona Fide Passenger' Status In Railway Accident Claim: Delhi High Court "Last Seen" Theory A Weak Link If Time Gap Is Wide: Bombay High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life For Murder Failure To Conduct Pre-Anaesthetic Check-Up Prima Facie Amounts To Gross Medical Negligence Under Section 304A IPC: Kerala High Court Gujarat High Court Bans AI From Judicial Decision-Making, Lays Down Strict Policy for Court Use of Artificial Intelligence

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