Dismissed

Prakash Parcel Services Limited v. Beml Limited

Karnataka HC2 Jan 2023COMAP/476/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the rejection of an application to frame additional issues shifting the burden of proof to the defendant. The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal, holding that the proposed issues violated Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, affirming that the plaintiff bears the burden to prove their entitlement in a money recovery suit.

What did the court decide?

The appeal seeking to set aside the rejection of an application for framing additional issues was dismissed.

Prakash Parcel Services Limited Vs Beml… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

COMAP No. 476 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 476 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

PRAKASH PARCEL SERVICES LIMITED HAVING ITS REG OFFICE AT NO.18/3, 1^ST MAIN, 2^ND FLOOR, MISSION ROAD, SAMPANGIRAMA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560027 REPRESENTED BY ITS MAJOR A.B.SINGH.

¶11

(BY SRI. A S GUPTA., ADVOCATE)

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

AND:

¶14

BEML LIMITED (REGD CORPORATE BODY) CORPORATE MATERIALS, ”BEML SOUDHA” 23/1, 4^TH MAIN, S R NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560027, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1)(A) OF COMMERCIAL COURTS AND COMMERCIAL DIVISION ACT, 2015, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2022 ON I.A.NO XII IN Com.O.S. NO.25714/2017 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE LXXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE IN (CCH-83) VIDE ANNEXURE-‘A’ AND MAY FURTHER BE PLEASED TO CONSIDER CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE PRAYER AS PRAYED IN I.A.NO XII UNDER ORDER 14(1) RULE(5) R/W 151 OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-‘B’ AND ‘B1’ ETC.

¶17

¶18

COMAP No. 476 of 2022

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶22

The appellant is the plaintiff in

¶23

Com.O.S.No.25714/2017 preferred against the respondent

¶24

therein praying for recovery of certain amounts alleged to be due to the appellant/plaintiff. In the said suit, an application, more particularly, I.A.No.XII came to be preferred by the appellant/plaintiff invoking the provisions of Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 of CPC calling

¶25

upon the Commercial Court to frame certain additional issues which are as under:-

¶26

“1) Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff committed the breach of agreement dated 25.06.2008?

¶27

2) If so, whether the defendant is entitled for damages as they claimed and adjusted towards the suit claim under the agreement dated 25.06.2008?”

¶28

¶29

COMAP No. 476 of 2022

¶30

On a plain reading of the proposed issues, it is apparent that the plaintiff wants burden to be cast on the defendant to prove as to whether the plaintiff has breached the Agreement dated 25.06.2008 or not. The other issue proposed is again an attempt to shift the onus of burden of proof on the defendant in a suit for recovery of money.

¶31

The Trial Court, after appreciating the same has held that the onus lies on the plaintiff, who approaches the Court to demonstrate the fact that he is entitled for the relief as prayed and hence, deemed it fit to reject the application.

¶32

Though the proposed issues appear to be

¶33

innocuous, the same are strictly in breach of Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which reads as under:-

¶34

“101. Burden of proof. – Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.

¶35

¶36

COMAP No. 476 of 2022

¶37

When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.”

¶38

In view of the unambiguous provisions of

¶39

Section 101 of the Act, we do not find any merit in the case of the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶40

In view of the disposal of the main appeal, pending interlocutory application if any, does not survive for consideration. Hence, disposed of.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Prakash Parcel Services Limited v. Beml Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Parcel Services Limited v. Beml Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Overseas Pharma Private Limited Vs Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha

Sri.Mavinaholeappa Vs State of Karnataka

The Karnataka Public Service Commission Vs Smt. Sujyoti Bhat

Sri. Srinivasa Setty Vs Inspector General of Police