Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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