Allowed

M/S Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited v. Arun Tiwari Proprietor of M/S Tiwari Traders Co.

Delhi HC7 May 2025CM(M)/860/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A recovery suit of Rs. 89 lacs was twice dismissed in default after the plaintiff failed to effect publication despite permission for substituted service. Restoration was refused by the Commercial Court. The Delhi High Court allowed the revision petition and restored the suit subject to costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~60

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 07^th May, 2025

¶4

- CM(M) 860/2025

¶5

M/S CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED

¶6

.....Petitioner

¶7

Through: Mr. Ankit A. Shah and Mr. Tarun Arora, Advocates.

¶8

versus

¶9

ARUN TIWARI PROPRIETOR OF M/S TIWARI TRADERS CO.

.....Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶14

J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶15

CM APPL. 27671/2025 & CM APPL. 27672/2025 & CM APPL.

¶16

27673/2025 (Exemption)

¶17

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶18

CM(M) 860/2025

¶19

The point involved in the present petition is very short and precise.

¶20

The petitioner herein filed a suit seeking recovery of Rs.89 lacs. Though, the suit was filed under Order XXXVII CPC but it was converted into a Regular suit.

¶21

The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that his application seeking restoration of the suit has been dismissed, without appropriately appreciating the reasons.

¶22

This Court has gone through the impugned order and, undoubtedly, the learned Trial Court was pained to see that on one earlier occasion also i.e.

¶23

CM(M) 860/2025 1

¶24

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 8.05.2025 15:17:23

¶25

16.02.2023, suit was dismissed in default and was, eventually, directed to be restored, subject to cost.

¶26

Thereafter, the plaintiff moved an application seeking permission to effect substituted service and, though, such request was allowed by the Court and defendant was directed to take steps to effect publication but no such steps were taken and, therefore, the suit was again dismissed in default on 22.07.2024.

¶27

The application seeking restoration is in context of the abovesaid order dated 22.07.2024.

¶28

On that day, there was no appearance from the side of petitioner and the defendant was also unserved till then. Taking note of the previous facts and also in view of the reason that the plaintiff had not taken any action to effect service through publication and the period of five years had already elapsed after the institution of the suit, the suit was dismissed in default and also on account of non-prosecution .

¶29

However, the order dated 22.07.2024 would also indicate that same day, after the abovesaid order was passed, the learned counsel for plaintiff appeared before the learned Trial Court and submitted that since the Law Manager of the plaintiff company had changed, the steps could not be taken. The Court, however, did not appreciate such contention and, therefore, the plaintiff, eventually, moved an application seeking restoration of the suit.

¶30

This Court has seen the reasonings given by the learned Commercial Court-02, South-East District, New Delhi and, clearly, noticing the conduct of the plaintiff, it refused to restore the suit in question.

¶31

Learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff undertakes that there will be no further delay or inaction on his part. He also submits that he has already given

¶32

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 8.05.2025 15:17:23

¶33

CM(M) 860/2025 2

¶34

the reasons on account of which, the steps could not be taken. He also re-emphasizes the fact that on same day i.e. 22.07.2024, he appeared before the Court, albeit , belatedly.

¶35

Keeping in mind the overall facts of the case, the fact that substantial amount is to be recovered by the plaintiff, and in the interest of justice, the present petition is allowed and, resultantly, the suit is directed to be restored to its original position and original number, subject to cost of Rs.25,000/which shall be deposited within two weeks from today with the concerned District Legal Services Authority.

¶36

The suit in question stands resorted and the petitioner/plaintiff is directed to appear before the learned Commercial Court concerned/Successor Court on 22.05.2025.

¶37

The petition stands allowed in aforesaid terms.

¶38

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

¶39

MAY 7, 2025/ss/js

¶40

Signature Not Verified

¶41

CM(M) 860/2025 3

¶42

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:0 8.05.2025 15:17:23

M/S Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited v. Arun Tiwari Proprietor of M/S Tiwari Traders Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited v. Arun Tiwari Proprietor of M/S Tiwari Traders Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lal Chand Yadav and Ors. Vs Sanjida Begum and Anr.

Ram Meher(D) Thr Lr Vs Mukesh & Anr.

Som Dutt Sharma and Ors. Vs Munni Lal and Ors.

B M Tiwari Vs Ramdin Gupta

Deepak Bajaj Vs Munish Aggarwal and Ors.

Rajni Verma Vs Pushpa Sonkar

M/S Khanij Impex and Anr. Vs M/S Transnational Shipping India Pvt. Ltd.

Ms Prime Gold Sail Jvc Limited Vs Shubham Steel Industries

Lal Chand Yadav and Ors. Vs Sanjida Begum and Anr.

Ram Meher(D) Thr Lr Vs Mukesh & Anr.

Som Dutt Sharma and Ors. Vs Munni Lal and Ors.

M/S a. G. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs Chetan Dass

Ms. Chongpi Misao Vs Mrs. Umlesh Sharma

Rakesh Kumar Vs Saroj Kumari Since Deceased through Lrs & Ors.