Dismissed

M/S. R.K. Mining Pvt. Ltd., v. M/S. Bellary Motor Sales Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2024RFA/100115/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a regular first appeal filed by a mining company challenging a money recovery decree. The court upheld the trial court's finding that the debt amount was admitted but the alleged unpaid advance payment and damages regarding retained vehicles were not substantiated by evidence. No counterclaim was filed for damages.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; judgment and decree of the trial court remanded and sixth date of suit remain unchanged.

M/S. R.K. Mining Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17597 RFA No. 100115 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶7

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100115 OF 2018 (MON-)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S. R.K. MINING PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI. RAVI KALYAN, R/O. 1-2-49/15, 1^ST FLOOR, NIJAM PET ROAD, HIDERNAGAR, KUKKATPALLI, HYDERABAD.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. V. M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI

¶14

M/S. BELLARY MOTOR SALES PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, M. RAJASHEKAR S/O. M CHANNAKESHAVULU, AGED: 39 YEARS, R/O. ANANTHAPUR ROAD, BALLARI.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶17

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶18

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.12.2017 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BALLARI IN O.S.NO.172/2012, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶19

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17597 RFA No. 100115 of 2018

¶21

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is by the defendant challenging the decree for recovery of money. The plaintiff’s suit is decreed in part directing the defendant to pay Rs.10,93,386/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 01.04.2011 to till the date of realization.

¶24

The plaintiff is a company which is a dealer of vehicles manufactured by M/s Mahindra and Mahindra. The plaintiff apart from selling the vehicles would also undertake the service work.

¶25

The defendant is also a company. Defendant is involved in the mining business. Defendant used to service the vehicles from the plaintiff-company. Plaintiff contends that defendant owed Rs.10,93,386/- towards the service and repair charges and the said amount was not paid despite the repeated demand by the plaintiff. Hence, he filed a suit for recovery of money.

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17597 RFA No. 100115 of 2018

¶27

The defendant did not dispute the business relationship of the plaintiff and defendant. However, the defendant contended that Rs.30,000/- paid by the defendant is not taken into account while making the demand and it is also his contention that two vehicles delivered to the plaintiff’s premises for service are not returned. The defendant company incurred damages and plaintiff is not entitled to recover the suit amount and the damages are to be adjusted to the account pertaining to the transaction maintained by the plaintiff and defendant.

¶28

The trial Court framed issues based on the pleadings and has concluded that the plaintiff has established the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant and defendant failed to establish that he has suffered damages and paid Rs.30,000/- towards advance service charges. Consequently, the suit is decreed.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶30

plaintiff/appellant would contend that the fact that there are two vehicles belonging to the defendant are left in the

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17597 RFA No. 100115 of 2018

¶32

premises of the plaintiff for carrying out service and repair is established and it is also forthcoming that those two vehicles though left in the year 2011, in the premises of the plaintiff they were not handed over to the defendant. Thus, the defendant has suffered damages as the said vehicles are lying in the premises of the plaintiff for the last 15 years. Thus, he would contend that the trial Court ought to have taken into account the value of the vehicles in the premises of the plaintiff and should have dismissed the suit.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶34

plaintiff/respondent would contend that the suit transaction is duly established and in the account statement sent by the plaintiff to the defendant, the defendant had replied admitting the correctness of the account statement and the same is marked at Ex.P-111 and from the said statement, it is apparent that the amount claimed by the plaintiff is due from the defendant. He would also contend that the claim, that the defendant

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17597 RFA No. 100115 of 2018

¶36

has paid Rs.30,000/- in advance and not taken into account by the plaintiff is not established by leading any evidence.

¶37

It is further stated that the further claim, the defendant has dropped two vehicles in the premises of the plaintiff for carrying out repair and service is not established and even assuming that the two vehicles are left in the premises of the plaintiff, it is for the defendant to take back the vehicle whether vehicles are repaired or not. He has not come to the premises of plaintiff to take back the vehicles. As such, he is not entitled to claim any damages. He would also contend that in case the defendant is entitled to any damages, he must seek the relief of damages either by filing a fresh suit or he must seek a counter claim. He had not done so, he is not entitled to any relief on account of the alleged damages.

¶38

This Court has considered the contentions

¶39

raised at the Bar and perused the records.

¶40

The following points arise for consideration:

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17597 RFA No. 100115 of 2018

¶42

i. Whether the appellant proves that

¶43

Rs.30,000/- is not taken into account which is allegedly paid towards repair and service charges in advance?

¶44

ii. Whether the defendant establishes that the two vehicles belonging to the defendant are dropped at the premises of the plaintiff’s for effecting service and repair and same or not redelivered to the defendant?

¶45

As far as the said transaction is concerned, it is

¶46

to be noticed that defendant in Ex.P.111 has clearly admitted the accounts statement sent by the plaintiff where the plaintiff has demanded Rs.10,93,386/-. Thus, the very admission of the defendant in writing would clearly disclose that Rs.10,93,386/- was the amount due to the plaintiff when he instituted the suit. Though the defendant has contended that Rs.30,000/- was paid in advance, after the defendant admitting the accounts

¶47

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17597 RFA No. 100115 of 2018

¶48

statement for Rs.10,93,386/-, the evidence on record would not establish payment of Rs.30,000/- towards service and repair charges. The plaintiff in the crossexamination has stated that said Rs.30,000/- is adjusted to earlier dues and there he has given deduction to the plaintiff. It is also noticed that there is no proof to hold that Rs.30,000/- is paid after plaintiff issued the statement demanding Rs.10,93,386/-. Under these circumstances, the trial Court is justified in holding that the suit transaction is established.

¶49

As far as the contention of the defendant that he has dropped two vehicles in the premise of the plaintiff for effecting repair and service is concerned, it is to be noticed that said contention is not available as the defendant has not filed counterclaim by seeking damages. He has also not sought set-off quantifying the exact amount of damages suffered on account of alleged default on the part of the plaintiff to service the vehicle.

¶50

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17597 RFA No. 100115 of 2018

¶51

Under these circumstances, the contention that the defendant is entitled to damages and the amount is to

¶52

be adjusted towards the damages, has no merit.

¶53

For the aforementioned reasons, this Court

¶54

does not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶55

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶56

RKM,AM CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

M/S. R.K. Mining Pvt. Ltd., v. M/S. Bellary Motor Sales Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. R.K. Mining Pvt. Ltd., v. M/S. Bellary Motor Sales Pvt. Ltd.

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

Karabasappa S/O Krishnojirao Hadimani Alias Basavaraj Vs Nagaraj S/O Karabasappa Hadadi

Smt. Neelavva W/O Hanumantappa Pujar Vs Sri. Bhimappa S/O Siddappa Pujar

Siddappa S/O Hanumanth Handi, Vs Manjula W/O Subhasachandra Handi

Smt. Kasturevva Vs Smt. Gangavva

Vishwanath Veerasangappa Vs Vinayak Ramachandra Naik

Geetanjali W/O. Girijojirao Deai Vs Sharmila W/O. Gajananrao Shitole