The bench dismissed the appeal, holding that the Single Judge correctly retained the plaint as it is a suit for damages, not specific performance. It is not a case where the plaint can be rejected against the agent under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, as such aspects can be decided in the suit itself.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO.454 OF 2009 IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1052 OF 2009 IN
SUIT NO.1759 OF 2000
M/s.United Liner Agencies of India (Pvt.) Ltd.
.... Appellants
V/s.
Tata Chemicals Ltd. and Anr.
..... Respondents
Mr.V.R.Dhond i/by A. Mehta Laljee and Co., for the appellants. Smt.Manjiri Shah a/w Smt.Elezabeth Joseph i/by Motiwalla & Co., for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR, & R.V.MORE, JJ.
DATE : DECEMBER 10, 2009
P.C.
the plaint against the defendant No.2, as it has been found that this is not a case in which plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel for the appellant however, submitted that in view of Section 230 of the Contract Act, 1872, suit against the agent is not maintainable. It is required to be noted that this is not a suit for specific performance of the agreement, but it is a suit for
2
damages for the alleged breach of the contract. So far as damages is concerned, plaintiffs will have to prove his case on the basis of evidence. In our view, it cannot be said that agent is not a necessary party to the proceedings. The appellant can certainly lead appropriate evidence in the suit to point out that he is not required to pay any damages and no decree can be passed against him in view of the provisions of Section 230 of the Contract Act. All these aspects can be decided in the suit itself. This is not a case in which plaint can be straight way rejected against defendant No.2. We accordingly agree with the reasoning given by the learned
Single Judge.
dismissed.
( R.V.MORE, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Whether the suit against the agent is maintainable despite Section 230 of the Contract Act 1872.
Whether the Single Judge rightly retained the plaint against defendant No.2.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s.United Liner Agencies of India (Pvt.) Ltd.
Tata Chemicals Ltd.
P.B.Majmudar
R.V.More
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
