M/S Sheerie Foods & Ors. Vs M/S Darshana Agro

The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning the judgment dated 02.04.2024 [ impugned judgement ] passed by the learned Commercial Court, whereby the respondent’s application under Order XIII-

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 17:26:45

¶19

A Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [ CPC ], was allowed and consequently, the respondent’s suit [CS(COMM) 01/2023 captioned M/s Darshana Agro v. M/s Sheerie Foods and Others ], was allowed.

¶20

The respondent (plaintiff in the suit) had instituted the aforesaid suit [CS(COMM) No. 01/2023] before the learned Commercial Court seeking recovery of a sum of ₹14,51,108/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Fifty-One Thousand One Hundred and Eight Only). 8. The respondent claimed that the said amount was outstanding and payable by the appellant (defendant in the suit) on account of various supplies made. However, the appellant had failed and neglected to clear the outstanding dues.

¶21

It is important to note that the aforementioned suit was instituted as a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC. However, by order dated 23.01.2023 passed by the learned Commercial Court, the suit was directed to be treated as an ordinary suit instead of summary suit.

¶22

In view of the above, an application for a summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC would not be maintainable. Rule 1 of Order XIII-A of the CPC as applicable to matters involving commercial disputes, which reads as under:

¶23

“ORDER XIII-A

¶24

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

¶25

1. Scope of and classes of suits to which this Order applies.— (1) This Order sets out the procedure by which Courts may decide a claim pertaining to any Commercial Dispute without recording oral evidence.

¶26

(2) For the purposes of this Order, the word “claim” shall include— (a) part of a claim;

¶27

(b) any particular question on which the claim (whether in whole or in part) depends; or

¶28

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 17:26:45

¶29

(c) a counterclaim, as the case may be.

¶30

(3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, an application for summary judgment under this Order shall not be made in a suit in respect of any Commercial Dispute that is originally filed as a summary suit under Order XXXVII. ”

¶31

It is clear from the plain language of Sub-rule (3) of Rule (1) of Order XIII-A of the CPC that an application for summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC would not lie in a suit in respect of a commercial dispute, which was originally filed as a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC.

¶32

Concededly, the respondent had filed a suit as a summary suit and therefore, an application under Order XIII-A of the CPC for the summary judgment was not be maintainable.

¶33

In view of the above, we do not consider apposite to examine the dispute and render any opinion on the merits of the dispute between the parties.

¶34

We, accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment and remand the matter to the learned Commercial Court to the position as obtaining on the date of the impugned judgment.

¶35

The present appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application is also disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

TEJAS KARIA, J

MAY 21, 2025/ PB

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶40

This is a digitally signed order.

¶41

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 17:26:45

M/S Sheerie Foods & Ors. v. M/S Darshana Agro

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sheerie Foods & Ors. v. M/S Darshana Agro

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Yaseen Vs Nawal Kishore Soni

Aasif Enterprises Vs Shankar Lal and Sons

Union Bank of India Vs Shashi Malik

M/S Dollar Industries Ltd. Vs Varish Aggarwal

Daya Ram Vs Union Bank of India

Sneh Lata Vs State Bank of India

Pandey Traders, through Its Proprietor Mr. Ram Charan Pandey & Anr. Vs Chauhan Water Supplier through Its Proprietor Mr. Roshan Singh Chauhan

M/S K Home Appliances Vs M/S Marvs Travel India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Sumit Somani Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 12 & Ors.

Aon Consulting Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 1(1), Delhi & Ors.

Flex International Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Ge Steam Power Inc( Earlier Known as M/S Alstom Power Inc) Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

M/S Ge Power Gmbh ( Earlier Known as M/S Ge Power Ag and Ealier to That as Alstom Power Ag) Vs Assistent Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Int Tax 1(3) (1) and Anr.

M/S Ge Steam Power Systems (Earlier Known as M/S. Alstom Power System Sa) Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1 (1)(1) and Anr.