Disposed¶26

Metomatic Industries Private Limited v. Prv Alloys LLP

Delhi HC21 Jan 2025RFA(COMM)/46/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Metomatic Industries Pvt Ltd v PRV Alloys LLP; RFA(COMM) 46/2025; High Court of Delhi; Navin Chawla J; Shalinder Kaur J; decided 21.01.2025; Order XII Rule 6 CPC; decree on admission; partial decree Rs.12,98,040/-; plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction in written statement; conditional decree under Order XII Rule 6; remedy by way of review application before Trial Court; appeal disposed with liberty; commercial suit CS(COMM) 442/2024; Karkardooma Courts; Shahdara Commercial Court-01; respondent proceeded ex parte (Nemo).

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the appellant to file an application seeking review of the Impugned Order dated 23.12.2024 before the learned Trial Court; liberty preserved to challenge the Impugned Order and any adverse order on the review application in accordance with law. ¶26

Metomatic Industries Private Limited Vs Prv Alloys LLP — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Trial Court could pass a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC without considering the appellant's plea, taken in the written statement, of lack of (territorial) jurisdiction of the Trial Court. +1 more

¶18

Ratio / Principle

If the appellant's contention is that no admission was made before the Trial Court and that the plea of lack of jurisdiction was never given up, the remedy of the appellant is to first move the learned Trial Court by way of a review application; the Division Bench did not decide the jurisdiction/conditional-decree pleas on merits.

¶25

Key takeaways

The appeal is disposed of by granting liberty to the appellant to file an application seeking review of the Impugned Order dated 23.12.2024 before the learned Trial Court.ratio¶26
The Court expressly clarified that it has not considered the appellant's plea on merits; if the order passed on review by the Trial Court is adverse to the appellant, it will be open to the appellant to challenge the Impugned Order as well as the order on the review application in accordance with law.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, JJ.), RFA(COMM) 46/2025, decided 21.01.2025: Appeal against the order dated 23.12.2024 of the District Judge (Commercial Court-01), Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, partially decreeing CS(COMM) 442/2024 (PRV Alloys LLP v. Metomatic Industries Private Limited) for Rs.12,98,040/- under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The appellant contended that the decree was passed without considering its written-statement plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction and that a conditional decree (subject to final disposal of the suit) could not be passed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The Division Bench expressed no opinion on these contentions; holding that if the appellant's case was that no admission was made and the jurisdiction plea was never given up, its remedy was to first move the Trial Court in review, the Bench disposed of the appeal granting liberty to file a review application before the Trial Court, while making clear that the plea was not considered on merits and that any adverse order (on the impugned order or the review) could be challenged in accordance with law.

¶1

$~125

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 21.01.2025

¶4

- RFA(COMM) 46/2025 METOMATIC INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD .....Appellant Through: Dr.Amit George, Mr.Nitesh Mehra, Ms.Hitankshi Mehra, Ms.Ananya Sikri, Mr.Dushyant Kishan Kaul, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

PRV ALLOYS LLP .....Respondent Through: Nemo

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR

¶9

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)

¶10

CM APPL. 3825/2025 (Exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

RFA (COMM) NO. 46/2025 and CM APPL. 3824/2025

¶13

This appeal has been filed by the appellant, challenging the Order dated 23.12.2024 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-01), Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in CS(COMM) 442/2024, titled PRV Alloys LLP v. Metomatic Industries Private Limited, partially decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff/respondent herein for a sum of Rs.12,98,040/-, under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short,

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Digitally Signed RFA(COMM) 46/2025 Page By:SUNIL Signing Da te:2 7.01.2025 20:17:40

¶16

1 of 3

¶17

‘CPC’).

¶18

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that though the appellant had admitted that it owes a sum of Rs.12,98,040/- to the respondent, at the same time, in the written statement, has taken the plea of lack of jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court. He submits that without considering the said plea, a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC could not have been passed. He further submits that the penultimate paragraph of the Impugned Order would also shows that the decree has been passed stating it to be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the defendant and subject to the final disposal/outcome of the suit. He submits that a conditional decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC cannot be passed. He submits that this itself shows that the learned Trial Court has passed the decree without considering the plea of the appellant as to lack of jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court.

¶19

The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that while the learned counsel for the appellant appearing before the learned Trial Court had stated that the amount of Rs.12,98,040/- is due to the respondent, however, it was also stated that the same was subject to a decision on the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court. This issue was, therefore, first to be decided by the learned Trial Court.

¶20

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶21

The Impugned Order makes us to believe that it has been passed

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

RFA(COMM) 46/2025 Page 2 of 3

¶24

Digitally Signed By:SUNIL Signing Da te:2 7.01.2025 20:17:40

¶25

on the submission made, by the learned counsel for the appellant itself in the course of the hearing. Though the learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no such admission made and the plea of lack of jurisdiction of the Court was never given up as is evident from the penultimate paragraph of the Impugned Order, we are of the opinion that if that be so, the remedy of the appellant would be to first move to the learned Trial Court in form of a review application.

¶26

We, therefore, dispose of this appeal by granting liberty to the appellant to file an application seeking review of the Impugned Order dated 23.12.2024, before the learned Trial Court.

¶27

We make it clear that we have not considered the plea of the appellant on merits, and in case the Order of the learned Trial Court is adverse to the interest of the appellant, it shall be open to the appellant to challenge the Impugned Order, as well as the Order passed on the review application, in accordance with the law.

¶28