Allowed

Maruti Udyog Ltd. NEWDELHIAND2 v. M/S.Dcl Finance Ltd. HYDAND2

Telangana HC2 Mar 2023CCCA/42/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals by Maruti Udyog Limited challenging money decree in three suits for refund of vehicle booking amounts. Court held there was no privity of contract between plaintiff financier and manufacturer. Manufacturer not liable for dealer's failure to deliver vehicles. Appeals allowed, trial court decrees set aside.

What did the court decide?

Appeals allowed; judgments and decrees of the trial Court in O.S.No.96 of 1998, O.S.No.95 of 1998 and O.S.No.558 of 1998 set aside.

Maruti Udyog Ltd. NEWDELHIAND2 Vs M/S.Dcl… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

brrPs

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

iTHURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF IUARCH , TWOTHOUSANDANDTWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

H ,t ll rHe HoNouriha LE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO I lrrle'noruounALr-e snr.frt?rce J. sREENTVAS RAo

¶6

CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NOS: 42 55 AND 71 0F 2002

¶7

c.c.c.A. Noi 42 0F 2002 s

¶8

I Appeal Under Section 96 of C.P.C. , 1908 against the Judgment and decree dated^'14-08-2001 in O.S.No. 96 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. tr i

Between:^:

1 Marut Margi^lrtrfn New Delhi^Limiteo - 110001^{}ttrh rrep.b Floor, Jewan} y its Managing Director^{Prakash, 25, KasturbaGandhi}

¶13

z. uaruiil UtylgiLirit"a *'1'1'n Floor, Jewan Prakash , 25, Kasturba Gandhi Margi NewDelhi - 110001 rep.b y its Executive Director

¶14

¶15

MarutiiUdyog Limited 1ih Floor, Jewan Prakash,25, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi^r 110001 rep. by its Senior Executive Mr. Kevin Poppin

¶16

tcpl^L"[J, "r the all ]ppellants rep. by S. Ravi Aiyar ) ...APPELLANTS/ rlr

¶17

...APPELLANTS/ Defendants 1 to 3

¶18

AND

¶19

MiS.OCL FINANCE LTD., Situated ast 6-3-569/1, DCL Chambers , Somajiguda, Hyderabad represented by its Dy..Manager^{( legal)} K.V.^Prasad S/o. K:V..Subbaiah,42,years, r/o. 6-3-569/1 , DCL Chambers, Somajiguda,

¶20

, ;'"'^:[:i:1r","* .,,n,t0,^No. 4, Motirar Nehru Road,^{Besumpet,Hyderabad} represented by its Managing Director

¶21

a. n.r.s.lvJto[^put. t-irni#o,r 6-3-905, saboo Towers,^{RajbhavanRoad,} Somajiguda, Hyderabad 1 rep. by its Managing Director

¶22

+. rne ohclatlliq'uidator, st Floor, Corporate Bhavan, Bandlaguda, Nagole,
Hyderabad.l i I
( R -. ilklJlJo ,, o" iurt oro", oat" d 18-08-2o22vide l.A.No. 1 of 2022
in CCCa 42 ol 2OO2
...RESPONDENTS
I :i
i. r,i
1.t
a{
ni
I
r,}

¶23

Counsel for the A:pellants:SRl.^N. VIJAY

¶24

Counsel for the R,rspondent No. 4 : SRI J. SRINADHA^{Rt:t)DY.OFFICIAL} LIQUr D ATOR.(Not Present)

¶25

C.C.C.A.M.P. No. 1803 ol 2002

¶26

Petition under Se ;tion 15'l CPC^praying that in the circutn';tarces stated tn the affidavit filed in su )pf,rt of the^petition, the High Cour: mav^{b,.: pl,lased} to stay the execution o1 1[6: ri :cree in O.S.No. 96 of 1998 on tt'e^{fil€) [rL:} oi the lll Additional Chief Judge, City^{:iril Court, Hyderabad

¶27

C.C.C.A.M.P No.¹⁵⁹⁵

¶28

Petition under Sier tion 1 51 CPC praying that in the circur n:,,tances stated in the affidavit filed in^r su rport of the petition, the High Cor rt ma'r lre pleased to modify the order dated 1{ -C2-2O02 in C.C C.A. No. 42 of 2t)02 l'..., .leleting the following words: i I

¶29

"On deposi ing the said amount the Respon(lents lrerreir are permitted to withdraw the'said i mount without furnishing any secu'ity'.

¶30

In exercise of its^p.rvrers under Section 151 of C.P.C

¶31

c.c.c.A. No: 55 0': 2002

¶32

Appeal Und( " liection 96 of C.P.C. , 1908 agairst the .lud()ment and decree dated 14-08-2001 r O.S.No.r558 of 1998 on the file of tlre lourt of the lll Additional Chref .lur gr:, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶33

Between:ⁱ

¶34

¶35

1. Marutii Udyo I -imited^,t 1'1^th Floor, Jewan Prakash ,15, Kasturba Gandhi Marg; New I^r-.lhi - 110001 rep.b y its Managing l)irectc,r

¶36

Maruti Udyo I -imited , 1 1th Floor, Jewan Pra<ash , .,15, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New t- r:lhi - 110001 rep.b y its Executive l)irectc r

¶37

Maruti Udvor L imited 1 1't' Floor, Jewan Prakasl- , 25, t(:rsturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi^-- 110001 rep. by its Senior Executive [Vlr Kr,vin P:ppin

¶38

...APPELLANTS

¶39

AND

¶40

1 lV/S.DCL^:l \ANCE LTD., Situated ast6-3-569/1 , Dl.- Chambers, Somajigu :a Hyderabad represented by its Dr,. Man ar-'er⁽ legal) K.VPrasad S, :. K.V. Subbaiah, 42 years, r/o. 6-3.569/1 [.tCL Chambers, Sonrajigu 1a Hyderabad.

¶41

Mahalaxmi [/otors Limited, No. 4, Motilal Nehru Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad represented by its I,4anaging Director

¶42

( R -2 Dismissed for default Court Order dated 8-1 1-201 3 )

¶43

¶44

f. nlK.S.ttlotors ,i Pvt. Limited, 6-3-905, Saboo Towers, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad rep. by its Managing Director

¶45

ll'r ' I

¶46

The Official Liquidator, 1st Floor, Corporate Bhavan, Bandlaguda, Nagole, Hyderabad. i ,r I

¶47

( R - 4 is impleaded as per Court order dated 18-08-2022 vide l.A.No. 1 ot 2022 in CCCa'No.t42 of 2002 )

¶48

ll r ...RESPONDENTS lll {i CCCAMP No. 3639 ol 2002: ,!I

¶49

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to stay the execution of the decree in O.S.No. 558 of 2008 on the file of the lll Additional Chief Judge, CityCivil Court, Hyderabad.

¶50

rl ti : li r i Counsel foi thi Appellants:SRl. N. VIJAY ri , I

¶51

Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 : SRI J. SRINADHA REDDY, OFFICIAL

¶52

LIQUIDATOR.(Not Present)

¶53

¶54

Appeal Under Section 96 of C.P.C. , 1908 against the Judgment and decree dated 14-08-2001 in O.S.No.95 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional Chief'Jud ge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶55

Between:

¶56

Maruti Udyog Limited 11th^Floor, Jewan^Prakash ,^{25, Kasturba Gandhi} Marg, New Delhi - 110001 rep.b^y its Managing^Director

¶57

Maruti Udyog Limited , 11th Floor, Jewan Prakash ,^{25, Kasturba Gandhi} Marg, New Delhi - 110001 rep.b^y its Executive^Director

¶58

Maruti Udyog Limited 11th Floor, Jewan Prakash,25,^{Kasturba Gandhi} Marg, Nerai D-elhi - 110001 rep. by^its Senior^{Executive Mr. Kevin Poppin}

¶59

( All Appellants rep. by its GPA Holder Sri S. Ravi lyer )

¶60

...APPELLANTS

¶61

AND

¶62

-1 , M/S.DCL- I: N ANCE LTD., Situated ast 6-3-569,¹ , D(l - Ch rmbers , Somajrg uc, ,, lyderabad represented by its Dy. l,4ana;r:r ( leqal) K.V. Prasad Siio h V. Subbaiah, 42 years, r/o. 6-3-569i 1 I)( ;L Ohambers, Somajig Ltc; ,llyderabad.

¶63

Mahalaxti lV rtors Limited, No. 4, Nlotilal Nehrr Ro,:rJ Beg;umpet, Hyderabart 'epresented by its l,4anaging Direck)r

¶64

IVlahalaxmi lM,rtors Limited , 40 1-41 , IV.G. Rozd Lo5;i re:t,^,rijayawada - .10, rep. b,' its Director, Vijayawada.

¶65

R.K.S.Motc 's Pvt. Limited, 6-3-905, Saboo Torvers.^Fla bhavan Road, Soma^jigud i ,^{l-lyderabad rep. by its lvlanaging [)ireclor}

¶66

The Offic:ia Liquidato'r, 1st Floor, Corporate Bhirvan, []: ndlirguda, Nagole, Hyderabatl I

¶67

¶68

(R - 5 is implezrdr C as per Court orderdated 18-08-2022 'riir l.A.No. 1of2022 in CCCA No 71 o 2)02 ) ...FIESPC)NIDE NTS

¶69

CCCAMP No. 501 1^r 'f 20O2 :

¶70

i Petition und er liection 151 CPC praying that in ttre circu.nstrrnces stated in the affidavitlfiled in s rp:ort of the petition, the Hrgh Court ma1 t.e pleased to stay the execution of the ;e:ree in O.S.No. 95 of 2008 on lhe fil€ r.f tl-e lll Additional Chief Judge, City C)iv i Oourt, Hyderabad.

¶71

rlit

¶72

Counsel foi the App rll,rnts:SRl. N. VIJAY

¶73

Counsel for the Resl^,ondent No. 4 : SRI J. SRINADHA REDtrl', Ol:FlClAL

¶74

LIQUIDAI C'R. (Not Present)

¶75

The Court delivered the following: Common Judgment

¶76

ilil { t

¶77

t,\RJ tt: JSk.t ( (:i 1 .rll 55,1^'1 o/ )0t))

¶78

HON'ELE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶79

crTY crvrl, couRT APPEAL NOS.42, 55 AND 7L OF 2OO2

¶80

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per I ktn'ble Sri Jttstk e P Naueen Rao)

¶81

O.S.No.96 ol 1998, O.S.No.95 of 1998 and O.S.No.55B of 1998 are filed by M/s.DCL Finance Limited in the Court of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at l-lvdcrabad against Maruti Udyog Limited, Mahalaxmi Motors Limited and RKS Motors Private Limited. Ali the three suits a-re filed for recovery ol money. In O.S.No.96 of 198 money claimed was respondent t 8,04,142.46 Ps.; in O.S.No.95 of 1998 money claimed was t 59,0O,633.20 Ps., and O.S.No.558 of 1998 money claimed was { 4,59,269 I -. In addition plaintiff also claimed subsequent interest at the rate of 24t'/o per annum. All the suits were decreed in favour of plaintift.

¶82

In O.S.No.96 of 1998, the trial Court granted decree directing the lst defendant to pay the plaintiff sum of { 5,84,4OO/- with interest at the rate of 78''/o per annum from the date of encashment of demand drafts i.e., 05.03.1997. In O.S.No.95 of 1998, the trial Court^granted decree directing the 1"t^defendant to^pay the plaintiff a sum of < 47,02,0361 - with interest at^l:he rate of l8%o per annum from the date of encashment of^respective demand drafts- [n O.S.No.558 of 1998, the trial Court passed decree^directing thc l.t defenclant to pay plaintiff

¶83

1J-

¶84

a sllnr^{()l {.1, .,701/'\'ltll IlllcrcsL at L}.1Llfil1c ol I!} 1r'i^{lllllillrfr()rll} 25.O1.1()(),^{lrr a l tl.tc sllrLs,Maruti t-ldlog Lirrircd l()r('i' irl(il b!ils} Managing^{)il-l'l: rlis thr: I''1 (lelendant}

¶85

3 Thcr,L' lli t'r:^{ilppealsare filedb1' thcVI:rrtt'i[Jr r ogLrrl'ri[r'<l} chrrllcttqirtrl^{l.r(l I"sl)cctl'('lrrcigmenLsancl decre'-t't' ltt tht"} sLtils As thc^{paltie :; t I .hr:se apJ)ealsand issues invo.verlar(' szlIllc l[lc:llc} hearcl^{logL tltr:r'arrd by this common judgmenl tllr-r ' re clLsposcdof.} Thr: partil;^{;tt','t i-:rred to as arravedin O S.No )5 r'1''!lE}

¶86

Tl.rr: 1't k:l-endarrt is^{engagedinmanufac:ltlrol1;rrssetrgcr} vehiclcs. I1s [jl, Ir ry is loc:Lted^{at Palam Gurgoa-rRoali ()rtrgoilll'Statc} of FIilryittt:r.^'l'll : ["r defenclant appoints^{dealers at vtll ir:us plirct:s irl tllc} cou n trv^a tld^l; lls its Ciirs through^{the deal':rs'l h : l'trlclendant} entcrsⁱⁿ to^{d l::t} crship agreements^{with its dealcrs.'f l ost: tlgt ccmcn[s} detcrmine thc c ationship of manufacturer^{wiLh th -- :lel lcrslrr lhe} ; I eLnd Srh defenclants wcre a.lpoit.t^t:r I^:r s^{dt:il lcrs in} sai(l manr)cr, Hycle ralta<l^:ll'rtl '.jayan arla.

¶87

M/s. T)o, Fitrance^{Limited is in the [g5;ine-s5 r f l-irc Pltrch:tse} ar-rd rcndcrs^{rnancialassistanceto itsculito:nc's" :i()m(' ofthe} customers^{aJr[ 1]achedthe defendantno. 1 conlF tlll\r lbr financlal} assistanc,' L(, I^{rrchase motor vehicles being nlar.u[itc tur:dbv lhe l"t} defcndant^{corr litny, Maruti Ud1'og Limited, thro'r:1 ils alrthorizcd} dealers Dc'ft:n:^{r,ttLt t-tos.4and 5, Mahalaxmil''Iolorr;' II1 dcrabad and} Vtjayau'zrtlil, rc,,P':cl^ivelY.

¶88

P\IIJ,t,JSR,,J ( ( ("1 \os 1), ji d .1 o/:00)

¶89

¶90

CCCA No.42 of 2OO2:

¶91

On 03.03.i997, the plaintiff company in the course of their business issued Demand Drafts amounting to { 5,g4,400/- in favor o[ the 1sr defendant companv to book trvo Maruti Zen Cars for its customers. The Demand Drafts along u,ith the requisite forms and documents were handed over to the authorized dealer/ Defendant No.4. According to the terms and conditions of the forms, the authorized dealer was duty bound to deliver the motor vehicles in stipulated period of 2-3 months. It is the case of plaintiff that even upon repeated reques[s by the plaintiff company, the Defendant No.4, authorized dealer, failed to deliver the motor vehicles as per the terms.

¶92

On 27.11.1997, plaintiff company issued legal notice to the lst defendant/manufacturer and Defendant No.4/clealer demanding refund of < 5,84,4OO1- with interest @ 30% P.A. due to non-delivery of the booked vehicles.

¶93

As the amount was not refunded, defendant No. I company filed O.S.No.96 of 1998 before the lll Addirional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for recovery of the amounts with the interest.

¶94

According to the plaintiff, in accordance with the terms and conditions mentioned in the booking form, the hrst defendant is supposed to deliver the vehicles within stipulated time of _2 to 3 months. Though the hrst defendant got encashed the Demand Drafts

¶95

(lrir\1r l)\ 'Jr, ', 1 :f l-f :rrlti senl tr) l)efeud:tl.tt^{:'t'r' 1 :I^tt ttq'I)cit'tlrllrlll} no.4. thc^j-i st clt^c lriitr-tr^{dirl llot dr'livcrthe veiriclesin . ')il, oI rr:pcat<'rl} rcqucsts.^'l lr' 1it,;t^{d,:[ctltlit:'rl. hout'r'cr,\lrrote tl l(]ttcl )ll')'07 19!.)7 lrr} plaintiff to sLtirrr t ccpies^{o1'relevatltdocumcnts o 5:' lr lcr rlanl rVhit:h} tl-rr: plarlrl l'l iL^{c rrdirtglv stlbmiltcd along !'ith it} l( ttcr d:rtccl 29 07 .7c:()'t. r'"lt clt^{,'t'as ztlso ackrlos'ledgedb!the ;:ci ''lt:nrlatllott} 30.O7.L99-,' lir'.^t'r therceLfter thc^{vciricles werc n lt dcli';':tr:'1.Itl Yic$' rll} non-delivcr r oi^{'he r.chiclcs,} thc^{plaintiff'scus tolrll s lli tl canccllcd} thcir agrcc- rrr'rt^$ ith thc^{plaintrff.Finalll' on 27 .11 1)t'1-.tl-re} Plaintifl' got issued rcgrst rr,:d notice to all thr: defendants^{deman:lillrl repa.'nrcllt} ol t 5,84,4o0/ vlrich was sent bv the^{plaintiff to the lt sr riefendantirr} the lorm r,l rle . n:.nd drafts through defendzrnt^No. 1.^{togetht:r u'itl.t} intcrcst rrl ',O'1, )Cr zlnnum. ln spile of receipt o' the^{rl,listt red tlo[it:C,} the defend;rnls^(rpt quiet u-ithout^paying the same.^Sint e^{tl-re lirst} dcfcndant^{r ()nrl,.} n!r ncit.hcr delivcrcd the vehi< les r()l^{r(lLurnedtllc} monev bat:l: to t re plaintiff. the plaintiff is entitled to^r: ainr^{intercst at} 21o/o p.a. S nr:: hr: clcmand drafts along with rcquisir<: Lrorking forms were sent to t.l:, lirst defendant through del'cn lattt No.4 u'ho is thc thcn dezrlcr ol t:^,: first defendant and the Stl' delend,arl is the^prcsenl dealer, all tht: <1 rlt:ndants are^jointly and sevcr:rllf i rI Lr l rr ti're suit amount. Ht'ncr:. h,: Suit.

¶96

All rlrc rn Lt:riaI ilverments in the plaint are rlr:nicd bl lhc defendants t to I Thc llrst defendant denied tlte br>o" inq ol vehiclcs with the fir-st d': errdant bv the customers mcnliont:d rr,' hc plairtill

¶97

/'^{</sup> 1?^I .( .,/S,Q J (I i I ,,, ll .;i ,\ 'I al100:}

¶98

¶99

and fhe plaintiff extcnding {lnancial^{assistance to thcm- The first} defendant also denies specifically the^purchase of^{demanddrafts bv the} plaintiff and sending the same to the first delendani along^with booking forms through defendant No.4.^The lirst^{defendanLalso denied} non-delivery of vehicles to defendant no.4. It is further^averrcdthat the suit is not maintainable and Civil Court has^{no jurisdictionto try} the same. There is no privity of contract^{betweenthe plaintiffand the} Iirst defendant, and, therefore, the^{plaintiff is not entitled for the relief} soughI for. It is the authorized dealer,^{who entersinto contract with its} customers but not the hrst defendant. [t is^{the authorlzeddealer,who} invoices the vehicles to its customers^{after payingthe AndhraPradesh} General Sales Tax and upon^{receiving the ex-showroom price at the} time of the deiivery. It is the authorized^{dealerwhoissues the sale} certificate in favour of the customers.^{Thus, there is never any privity} of contract between the^{plaintiffand the first defendant.}

¶100

I 1. The third defendant^{addressedletter dated 72.7 1997 to the} plaintiff to ascertain the customers^{bookings and to conltrm the same} upon receiving the^{relevant recordsthrough defendant No.4. The 6th} defendant upon ascertainment^{had delivered back the documents to} the plaintiff and it^{was ascertainedby the first defendantthatthe} plaintiff had not made any^{bookingswith delehdant No.4.The hrst} defendant denies addressing^{of letter dated12.7.1997to the ptaintiff.} The first defendant is not^{liable either for deliveryof the vehicJesor for} refund of any^{amountwhatsoever.The plaintifffailed to produce any}

¶101

docLtrt-tcttl^,tl I^{L I zittg Il lo lllc tllcst-Lir ()r to-I il irtc all"l(rg:Ll} prot:L't'cl i:'rq:; otl^{I crlall- ol its irllt gcci cLlst()lncrs' Tlris s;rtl is also llad lor} non^{joinclcr ol tt 'c:::ssztrt par{it's The first delcn'1alrllrrrliit ed sr''pzlrilte} crinrin:rl^{pr i)(, ( : Lt gs llrtermin.lting thc clealerslript;l'li' dolenctirrlt lor} its Ornissir n^{,, r ccommission:rnd irrcgulariti :s rnira,r'ingcxccss} vehir:lcs. TIrc^{:;r t ts, t hcre fort:, Iiable to be dismir;sed}

¶102

Accc)r(iinil^{l-l the r+ti' dclendant,when tlle ierrL;tnrl drltl'ts are} purPr>rti:d :o lrc^{In lavourof t[-rc first defendant, ']th de i:rrdantcOuld nol} havt.cncasl-ir.:l h:^{sirmc ancl as such,the quesLionol'dclendar-rlNo.'1} not rleliverrng^{It: r'r:l'tit:lcsto thc piaintif[ docsr-tot ari';c That hc has} not rcceivt.d^{,r() lr-e dzltod 27.11.1997.This corrrthz.rl rlc jurisdiction} and thcre^{1s no criuscof actior-r.Thc suit is liaLle to [-r, dismisscdand} 51r.4ot 6{sf,'nrJirr t^{is cntitled [or cxemplary costs}

¶103

All thc llegations^{m:rdc in the plair Iarr' rlcrried bythe} 6d, rlefend,rnt^{;. Lcl the ptair-rtiffis put to strict pr rof of llLC s'ameThc 6rh} defcnclant lr;trl rto^{pnviLl oIc,)rltract with thep1 rintiffThc6d'} defcr-rd:lnt h: rlⁿ I^{knou'ledge of the terms an1 <:orclitio ls tl-ratu'ere} agrced uprn^{[r.: l.r|ccn the plaintiff on one hand .ud t-ttr rlcfendantNo 4} on the othe'r^{irll rlr} termination^{of the authorized deale:s frip of delcndant} No.4 bl tlrr: fir.: t lefendant.^{The first defendant hadrr Lstructed the 6th} defcndanL^{Lo t'r .:l ivc ccrtain documentsin resp -'ct of l- lol'.ings pcr-rding} with defendarrt lio.4 and^{accordingly,the first dt:fr:llcr:rntappcared to} havc intirn:r1r,- ihc^{samc ttt tltc allegcd custolneruo- tl Lc plaintiffto}

¶104

/'\ d ,rd /./i.J (( ( 1\D\Jl. i:11 lut)l)0:

¶105

¶106

approcrch 66 defendant for receiving documents on behalf of thc first defendant. The 6th dc[endant having received ccrtain documents acknowledged the same and after their verification by the third defendant returned back the same under acknowledgement due. No amounts u,ere paid either by the plaintiff or its customers to this defendant. The first defendant neither sent any vehicles nor gave any instructions for delivery of vehicles to the 6t defendant. The 6ft defendant being an authorized dealer of the first defendant, it rs acting wholly on the instructions of the first defendan[. There is no cause of action against the 6th defendant for l-rling the suit. The 6h defendant is not a necessary party to the suit. The suit is also bad for mis-joinder of parties. This suit may, therefore, be dismissed with exemplary costs againsr the 6s delendant.

¶107

On analyzing the pleadings, evidence and submissions, trial Court held issues 2, 5 and 6 in favour of plaintiff and against first defendant. Additional issues were held in favour of 6dr defendant. Issues 1, 3 and 4 are held against defendants and in favour of plaintiff and decreed the suit < 5,84,4OO1- together with interest at lSyo per annum from the date ol the encashment of the respective drafts till the date of payment with proportionate costs against the hrst defendant. The suit against defendants 2 to 4 and 6 is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.

¶108

', n i,,J /,( l i.\ r. l-'^ji:i-l r/:r/rl

¶109

¶110

CCCA No.55 of^'.2002:

¶111

i 5. Acco rdi r 1: t,r Plaintifl. hnancral^{assistanc'' rr'i:-s i xtended to trn'o} ir.c Marutt Van 8O0^{CC on hire purchasebzrsis As pcr} persons L(, ac(11 their instrr,tctit n i, plaintiff purchased t$'o^{DenLardDrafts for} { 1,57,852 /'-^€): ,:lr i;-r lervotLr of zrul}-iorizcd dealel ol dtrli.nd:nt^{rlo.1 i e} , the de fenclan^L rr,.4 urnd handcd over to^{4d' defe'rclll-rt alor-rg wilh} booking order fr rn'r through its two custon)ers^{(.'n 22.O1.1997} ' defendant rro.4 s:,ucd receipt Nos.368 and^{330. As p:r orrler form,the} vehicles wrtre t( 1re clclivered u'ithin three mon.,hs.^{[rlhe meantime,} 6ln defenclant \ as substiluted in place of 4'h^Cef:ndant.On 07.O8.199-?,^(rL' t:iefendanl intimated plaintiffs cus;tct.-rers to^deposit balance anloLrrr. Ar:cordinglr', balance amount rf t^{25.19(>/each was} paid by uia]' cf l ,a r' c)rders datcd 19.08.19097. It is^z s';erted^{that even} after pavmcnt^<r ' l:,aiance price the vehicles we re not dei vere d insplte.of repeated rr:qu e. ,s As vchicles were not delivered, cll itoln(lrs cancelled the agreefilent^r nC the plaintiff's amount is lyirrg with^{tht: defendants} from 22.O' .191, '''. On 27.11.1997, plaintiff issrrecl r,'ELste red demand notrce to the^c1e l'cndants demanding an amounr. of {³ 66,696/-^along with 3oolc ir: t,: -cst per .rnnum. In spite cf tht Cernand notice defendants did rot turn up to pay the amount. Flence^t re suit.

¶112

First defi:^{Lriant raised preliminary objecticn on n- aintainabilityof} the suit contert^[i tg^thaL eis^{the businessof fir;tdelel clant is carried} out in Ner*, De^{r Courts} in^{Hyderabad have no jur:sd ction.. Further,} there was nc, I^)rrvity o;^{.*1r&act betrveen} thc^{plair ti.T e .nd} the^first

¶113

t,\ /t -/ r( "/-s,{ J (l(-(-.] .\ r.r J-? jj ,t 'l ol )001

¶114

¶115

delendant. Further, objcction is on non-joinder of necessary partics, the alleged customers of defendants. It is denied that defendant assured to hand over vehicles in three months. It is also denied that defendant no.6 is substituted dcaler in place of defendant no.4" It is assertcci thal plaintifl has not made any bookings either with 4n defendant or 6h defendant.

¶116

This defendant submits that generally bookings are made by the prospective customers with the authorized dealers of this defendant by depositing a demand draft equal to the dealer destination price payable to ANZ Grindlays Bank, Hyderabad. The customers execute the order booking form containing the terms and conditions of sale, approximate delivery period of vehicles besides the details of vehicles booked. Authorized dealer upon receiving the demand drafts hands over a copy of the order booking form and issues a receipt for the demand draft received by the authorized dealer. Thus, the authorized dealer enters into a contract with the customers. The authorized dealer further maintains the Paymen[ and Delivery Register and the seniority of its customer for the delivery of his vehicle. Thus, a contract for sale of vehicle is created between the dealer and the customer concerned. The authorized dealer who receives the demand draft deposits the same in the ANZ Grindlays Bank for crediting the^process into the dealer control vehicle purchase account.

¶117

t ,)r:at): li

¶118

Acco rdi tr: .o rhc ai,ailabilitr ol the^{fun:ls ir: tl'esaiclcie aler} conlrol aci- au a - 1-ie vehiclcs arr,' sol<l^{it1' this clelcnclanin lavour of its} authorizec Ce: crs Thrrs, this defendant cann,)i^{crrrrelalethe} individual boo. ings made b1' the customer throltS;h^{it:; authorized} dealers.^'lhez u -horized dealcrs :rre also ttol^reqr-ir :d^{to se nd the} details of thc t:t slomcrs,^r...ho have madc the^{bookitlllsc,f the r"ehicle s.} This del-en clart¹ nraintains thc dealer control iLCCoLln^{indicatingthe} payments recei' erl in ANZ Gndlays Bank and -he^{'rch rcle s sold to its} aulhorized dr:a^l .l's against the availability of lher f'rrds in tl-re said account.^'lht s^r e'endant invoices the vel.ricle^af ter tnaJ'in51^{pal'ment of} the Centreil Sia. ':s Tax and invoices the vehicl: in h''our of various dealers. This cl fr:ndanl, docs not earmark the vehicl: in favour of^any individual cus;t - rners. Thc:ruthorized dealer invoices t} e^{vehicles to its} customers afte: p rying th,' A.P. Ct ncrai Sales l'zrx i[l](^I t[)on rcceiving the ex-shcxvr ttt .n prevaiiing price at the time of Llre dt:1ivery. The authorized dt:a r:r also issues the sale certificate i I favour of their customers^']1' Ls, there rs no privity of contract betw::en the plaintiff and this dcfencl rn t.

¶119

It i,. furl hr:r averred that for the acts of^{r:o:nrrLissions and} omissions ernd z lso rrregularities committed^{in drarvirgexcess vehicles,} the first deferLd; nl initiated criminal^{proceedingsaga n,lt. z lri1 defendant} by terminatinq lri:. dealership.

¶120

P \R.i .t ./.s,?,./ (:CC) 55 & ;t ol2002 I2 ^as12

¶121

[n the {,ritten statement {ited by the 4Ih defendant, it is contended that urlren dcrnand drafts were issued in favour of defendant no. 1 , Lhe 4tr defendant could not have encashed the said demand drafts and therefore the ques[ion of this defendant delivering the vehicies did not arise. Further, there was no demand or request made by the plaintiff to this defendant. Deponent also denies of receiving nolices from the plainl il[.

¶122

In the written statement hled by the 6ff defendant, he denies existence of privify of contract with the plaintiff and that suit hled does not show any cause of action with this clefendant.

¶123

In reply to the allegations made by the plaintiff in paragraph-S of the plaint, this defendant submits that he has no knowledge of the terms and conditions that were agreed upon by the plaintiff, and defendant no.4. After the termination of the authorized dealership of defendant no.4 by defendant no. 1, the l"t defendant had instructed this defendant [o accept the documents of certain bookings pending with defendant no.4. It also appears that the hrst defendant had intimated the customers viz., K.Prabhakar and B.V.Subba Rao to approach this defendant, for receiving the documents on behalf of the first defendant. This defendant was instructed to receive the documents for verificalion by the Area Manager of the f,rrst defendant and also to receive the baiance amount.^In anticipation of clearance to be obtained from defendant no.l, he^received two pay orders of

¶124

' .t:tt): ll

¶125

< 25,4961 c.r(tl liom tl-rc sajcl^{Prallhakilr arrld Sul;t:iRa;, rr'lro rnzldc} bookings r)Ir tl e r o$'n^{trehall, this delenclant rr:lt':l;r:d Lhe vehicle} arrival intirnati( t]

¶126

The defe: ciant avers that erccpt Lhe^{tllorcll'r,:r tiotred r"vo pay} orders of {:2li 4)61 - each, no other amount u'as^{t :ceived} by^this defendant hs tlLc docurncnts t\rere presented on tlle^{rnstructions of} the first defe:r: ,rnt, this dcfcndant had to acknorvte J8e the receipt of the originai rec, itrrts and the other documents nLade^1r1 thr:^parliesand these are t-he d< crrments refcrred to at pages 7 ancl¹³ ol'the^documents hlecl by thc pla n.ifl'. Thc l-irst defcndant neirhcr setrr-^{an:1 vehicle nor} any instructi(ln .; lor delivr:r1' of vchicle and dirccte,C tlrr: Cefendant to return the docu lnents to the persons u.ho had d:posite,^{I tL cm u'iththrs} defendant

¶127

As thi:; :lt fendanl^q,as acting only^o r thtr instructions^of defendant no. . .his defendant returned all the^{clo:r m(,nts received} from the pa ti:s mentioned above bl registel ed post with acknowledgerne lt due. The documents sent tt^{Ii.V.SlubcaRao were} received a:-rd rh ' postal acknowledgment is filed^{here'v't.h. Whereasthe} documents serr^1rl Prabhakar^were returncd.^{'lhis lar} t^{has also been} intimated to tht plaintiff vicle letter^{of this defen,lant rle ted 21.1 1.1998.} As the above t-'rc bookings u.ere madc by^{the plairti T, .he amounts} which vr.ere rect ived by us viz., < 25,496/-, in^{e -,rcl-t clsieuere} returtled to the piarntilT ),y tlr,o cheques bearing nos.500!)59 a rc: 5[)O960. This

¶128

¶129

P|R.l & .ls? ) a al'r ,,\ J:. 5; &^7l oi:002

¶130

I.l

¶131

defendant avers that both thcsc cheques u,crc encahsed by the plaintiff. As such this delendant has absolutely no privity of contract with the plaintiff and the suit as [rled is not maintainable against this defendant. There is also no cause of auction alleged against this defendant for filing the suit. This defendant is also not liable to pay back the suit amounts.

¶132

On analyzing the pleadings, evidence and submissions, trial Court held issues 2, 5 and 6 in favour of plaintiff and against first defendant. Additional issues were heid in favour of 6ff defendant. Issues 1, 3 and 4 are held against defendants and in favour of plaintiff and decreed the suit for t 3,15,O74/- together with interest at 187o per annum from 23.01.1997 Lill thc date of realization with proportionate costs against frrst defendant. The suit against defendants 2 to 4 and 6 is dismissed without costs.

¶133

CCCANo.71 of2OO2:,

¶134

The plaint averments disclose that on the request of its customers, the plaintiff provided hnancial assistance on hire^purchase basis to acquire Maruti Vans 800 CC, standard and A/C.^{The plaintiff} purchased demand drafts on their behalf in favour of defendant no. 1 and handed over to th6r customers. The customers^{have filedorder} booking forms enclosing Demand Drafts and^{handed over} to first respondent's authorized dealers in^Hyderabad and Vijayawada, defendants 4 & 5, and obta inedTlceipts^from them. The d.f..rd".rt"

¶135

¶136

\'crL' reqtr i r'c(l l( <iel vcr lhc vchir'lt s tt ithin trr,r I ) 1i1r'(⁽ ln(rnths but Irot delivercrl in r;;r ie .)l rcpcaled r('(lucsts evcn tl'toug r tlrr de f,:ndants havc enca;lrr,'cl ,l-e I)cm:rnd Dralts. On 12.0l 1(J!) ',^irr':;l clcicnclant q'rotc let t( r 1o lL^{esting, plain1]ll tosubmiti rrth.:(lo( llrncnts lor} clelivcry ol vt: Ii rl( s irn(l acc:orclingll. rerlui ccl Iocrrrrrents we rc subn'rittcd virlr' e'ter d:rtcd 29.7 .1997 , copv ol ir,.i-rir:lr r li:r seni to 6rh defcndant.^(-,r: 3).7 .1997 , 6d, dcl-cndant has l rve n ,l( lin ru,leclgment. Holgcver, r,ch iclr s w()re not delivcrc<l. It is furth 'r czr: r: oI rlainliff that when tl-rc J;laL Lt ff dcmanded the installrncrrI e,r.rr r]r)t from the customers, Lhc customers have cance 1lcd th,' :t51rc r rrrcnts on the protest that dc [r r-rrlarts havc not clclivcred t h(' ,( hicl,lrr i')n )7 .11 .1997 plaintiff issuerl rcti(:e sont lhrough registered f^,ost t )^rlrc delendants demanding refi-r rc crf { 47,02,036 I' along ',r'itir intr:;r:.,1 1i 30 % per annum. As L'rr: e \las no responsc to the said no1 icc tnslant suit is filecl. It is rts ulther case th:lt ils thc amour-rt is r ir g u.ith the defendants it is rllrtitled to recover the money n'i h ir:t:: :st (i 24^ok per annum and th rt defendzrnts jointly and se,,erall:, liatle ro pay { 59,00.63i1.2,3 r rll 1(1.3. 1998.

¶137

In thc^,,rritten statement of defcnciant rro. 1, on the maintainabilitl' < f the sr.rit, the procedure of bookrng r ncl delivery of vehicles, LI'.c ,;rt nr: avermeints :trc made as ar errcd in -he u,ritten statement filed ir^()CCA No. 55 of 2002.

¶138

P\k.t .l .1\R.-) ( CC..l .\rr l-'. 55 & : l ul :00:

¶139

¶140

[L is further averred that third defendant addressed letter dated 12.7.1997 to thc plaintiff t ascertain the status of customer Lrooking and to reconfirm the same upon receiving the records from the defendants 4 and 5. Upon ascertaining, the 6th defendant delivered back the document to the plaintilf. [t is asserted that the plaintiff had not made booking of vehicles u.ith defendants 4 to 6. The first defendant denied receiving letter dated 12.7.1997 or sending the letter to the 6h defendant from the plaintiff for submission of further documents. The.hrst delendant denics its liability either to deliver vehicles or refund of amount. [t is further averred that it has initiated separate criminal proceedings by terminating the dealership of^{the 4th} and 5m defendants for the acts of omissions and commission and irregularities in drawing cxccss vehicles.

¶141

This defendant submits that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. This defendant further submits that the suit^{is not} maintainable in law against this defendant. This defendant^further submits that there is no privity of contract^{betweenthe plaintiffand} this defendant. This defendant further^{submitsthat the CivilCourts in} Hyderabad have no^j urisdiction to entertain^{the suit filed by the} plaintiff against this defendant. There is no^{agreement much less a} contract between the plaintiff and this^{defendant. Thisdefendant} further submits that the agreement^{having enteredinto by the plaintiff} with the defendant Nos.4 and 5^{cannot be enforcedagainstthis} defendant. This defendant^{furt,er submitsthat the suit is not} -..-=.---.

¶142

! ./JA', /

¶143

mill]r Lair.rtll )i( i^- .l is liabll lo bc sttttttn:irilv rr'.1t at( (l I :ist lLti'lt as thcl plairr tiff hi s lrr ('n r:rerl inlo arrr' ('orltrar('l \'ttll l ll,' ' i ldalll Nos.4 anrl 5. Th is^,le: :rrdant furthcr srtl)lrits that lh.l^{u rllc:r'd} i^{ttstotncrs of} thc plaintif l' har' n1I failecl to initiate or take anv sLe[)s^{iLQ ,i]n} st^cle lendant Nos^.1 ancl 5. rp^r o facto discntitles thc plalnlill flonr cL,r nr rq^;rni rclicf whatsoevcr^.

¶144

In Llrc ,r-r t(cn statemcnt filecl by 6tr' de[-'nr1;Ltrl.^{th< dcfcndant} denic's prir itr oI conLract rvith the plaintifi. Accordrnq^, ihis dr:l'endant aftcr tcrminzrtic r oI deal<:rship o1' 4th and^{5tt 1{1'f'1,612111,} the lirst dclcr-rdar-rt instlrr:tcd this defendant to receive lI c dr^t utnents of ccrtain bo,rki rti., cending with 4th and 5th defe rdirrtls 1bl^vcrilication b1, the A-r:a l'[anrLger oi the first delenclant an ] 1o retrtnt the docr:ments 1o tl e ctrstomcrs. He dcnied of ally anrol n pirid to thc 6th defcnclant. Dcft: rc trtrt asserted that the Court bc low h r^, n,^{, ju} risdiction to dccide thc srl t.

¶145

On :or:si eration of pleadings, submissirns zr I cridr:nce, the trial Court :rr)s;^,rc red issues 2, 5 and 6 in favc,ur ol t re plaintiff and agzrinst fir'st c^'fe ndant ancl additional issues irr ler, cu^- of tl-rc 6th de{cudant. iss rrt:s, 1, 3 zrnd 4 answered in [avo'-r r ol plaintiff and agairrst defend', r-rls. The trial Courl decreed thr srrit k.r 1^,+7 ,O2,036 / - togcther u,rth r-^l-e:rest @ 18 96 per annum frorn^r hc r lt l,^,rf r: r'r<;r.Lslt mcn t o[ rcspectir.,c ,]r: n rnd drafts till thc date of payorent r.,ilh I,;lportionate

¶146

f \ 1i ./ (( .,/.r/i ./ ( ( ( 1 \r,.\ J-r ti d :l 0l )01)l

¶147

¶148

costs against thc first dc[cndant. Thc suir against defendants 2 to 6 is dismissed without costs.

¶149

Based on the pleadings, the trial Court formulated seven issues and two additional issues in each suit and on assessment of evidence, .recorded findings in the thrcc suits. The issues, additional issues,

¶150

evidence relied on and hndings are shown in a table format as under:

¶151

SL	SuitNo	Issues/Additlonalissues	Evidence	Findlngs
(1)	t2t	(3)	l4)	(s)
1	O.S.No.96 of1998	1.Whctherthc suir asiramcdrs 3.whelherthe suiLisbad for m,s ,oiDdcroi 2Whether therers any p.rvrt]ofconrracr herweenrheplainritlanddelpndanrsIro^'1, 4.,Vhe(herthrsHotl'blecoun hasgor terrtorraIJu.rsd rcnon? 5.Whethertheplaintiffis claimedexorbitant 6Whetherthe plaintrft is enrirlcdlor reovery of aftount rnthesurrwrthxrleres( 7-Towhat retieP OnOl.Oa.lS99,thefollowingaddrtional issu€swereframed: I-whetherlhereis anyprivityofconrracr b€tweentheplaintiffandthe5'hdefendanl? 2Wh€therthe plarntiff isenntledtora decreeforthe su,ramounratainstdcfendanr No5?'	()nbehallolplirLntiiT, P.W I rlas exd'rnd a.drntuked Exs.Alto422O,'Ithaltol dcrrnda.rs,lrlts Ilo3w.re examined and ErsRItoBB	On analyzingthe pleadinss,evidenceand submissions,trialCourt heldissues2-5and6in favourof plaintirand againstfirstdetendant. Additiomlissues wereheld rnfavourof5'd€fcndanr. lssuesl,3 and4archeld aAainstdelendanrsandin favourofplaintifrand decreed Lhe suit t5,44,4OOlrogether s.ith rnterestat18o/"per annum from rhe date olthc encashmentof the rcspectivedraftstillthe date ofpaymentwrth proportionate costsatainst rhefi.stdefehdant.The suitagainstdefendanrs2to 5 isdismissed.but'nthc circumstanceswirhout
2	O.S.No.55a otI998	l.Whetbcrthe suit astramedis 2.Whethertlere is anypnuryofcontract betweentheplaintif[anddefendantsIro3r 4.WhetherrhisHon'blecouft hasaor rcrritoriaI^jurisdiction? claiDing 3. whcthe.thesuit isbadio!rnis-joindcr of 5-Whethertheplaintif exorbitantinterest?	OntrehalloiplainritI,one vitnessvns.xaDrneddd 24dcumentswercmdked- Onbehalaoldclendants, rhree cramned andlldauments	On analyzingthe pleadinss,evidenc€aDd submissions.rrialCourr heldissues2, 5and6in favou. ol plaintifiand against first defendanr. Addrtional issues wer€ held 'n^{favourolslhdefendant.} lssuesl,3 and4are held againstdctendanrsandin favour of plarntif and decreed the surt for { 3,I5,O74l-tosetherwith interestatt8%p€r annum frolE23011997 tillthc date of real;ationwrth proportionate costs a8ainst first defe ant. Thcsurt a8ainst defendants 2to5's

¶152

r (

¶153

:ti,):

¶154

.r h.r. rr .rn, p.:!rtr ol .o,)uart
he 31ar.r ll rrd rh. iti rl.t.r.ilantl
ii r r.c triiJ,r l is elrr,rl.(l lor a
or LI( rrirr anounl ,rgaiDii
i, No 5?'
l srt as i,anr.a 1 ': :.i. , ,rrs . , ,- ssro.s .,::,1
iLtre r(.. rl,!. r.,al ((,rL
,rns\ircd L\s(.rs 2, 5 nfd 6
1. ere rs ,,nL pr,vtv ol .oDtracr r'' f, rour () lhr plarntrtt an.]
' re t1a'rtril inrl detendanrs I to 3? i liga C.l isr [,5 ,.,i., L-rLi"s t]cleidanl L. tavoi:,an(l
li', h. r tlc sur is l).d for rnrs 11,rn.ier o[ . lrsLes I I lri. .- ,, .,.r - ,ief.n(I.n.ans\an{l
Dlai. otl iIa
rg, i.I rl|, ! riln s lli.
, ial I .rLr r !1. r".rl th. sr.l
\ I r ,.r thrs Ildn tl. .Dur
.,: ,.1/ ),rtr' lorlr,rh.
) i.r rrs(l( t(),r, \ il .It.rr, t , " l, r
Jl r ri ft.r h. (lnr. rl
\r cllrcr lhc phrnrill 41..si)"r. I i r.sPe.r ^.
'n8 d.nrtrd (lr,rrr, !ll rhc dar.
o l)ir\ 'r!,nr s, ll
ir op) lrorrr r costs aSarnsi
a r\l Llrrr the |tarntilf rs enr tcd lor rlie lr.sl d.1..tant. lh.
rn llF suLt \rrh rnlcrest i.tendanrs 2 ti
i, :r d,:ir Is d \rrho,ir
') I 19!)9. rh- rolloqr.s ad(l,Lon.)l
r. Lhcre is an\ prilrr_\ oa conirrcl
lli: plarntrtl,!',d the 6n rlcferdn',r'l
', thr piar. li rs en!lled lor a
ft lre s.r r arnoun, aearust

¶155

As can bc s e r lrom the tablc above issues in all r Lrec suirs are same, the partics 'r) same , all evidcnce relied on is sanLr: the slirnd of respeclir,e partie s s same and hndings iecordecl bi, th,: r. izrl Corrr-t are same. Inspitt: o' s r:rvice of notice s, plaintilT hei:s tol a t(:serr to cnter apperance As ..'(' ,v()re informed that the company is i. Ii, rr,riclatior, u,e havc issuc'd noti('c to official l,iquidator, but he ha; alsc r.ot :hosr:n to make sr-rirrnissi.ns; F'ulther, implead respondent N,).4 n(,r lile I c.,-rnter

¶156

/,\RJ&./.,(./ I^{( (-t} \or t.^j-t &^{t/d/ _r////'}

¶157

¶158

nor dcnicd thc claim^{of thc defendan[s1 to 3. Or-rl1'learnedcounsel for} appellants/ delendants^{1 to 3 made submissions}

¶159

Having^{heard learned counselfor appellants,the issuesthat} arise for consideration^are:

¶160

" 1. Whether there^{is privity of contract betwcen Lhe piaintiff and} the defendants I^{to 3 ?}

¶161

Whether the impugned^{judgments and decrecs passed by the} trial Court are^{sustainable under Iaw ?}

¶162

To what relief^?

¶163

ISSUE NO.1:

¶164

The crr.x of^{the issue in these three appeals is whether there} was privity of^{contract between the plaintiffand the defendants1 to 3?}

¶165

The primary^{defence of defendants 1 to 3 is that there is no} privity of contract^{between the plaintiff and defendants1 to 3 and'} therefore, suit^{is liable lo be dismissed on that ground 'Accordingto} these defendants,^{by separate contract,Dealerships were awardedto} the defendants^{4 and 5 and the termsof the contract clearly disclose} that the vehicles^{are delivered to the deaier by the manufacturerafter} receiving the^{sale consideration excludinglocal taxes and commission} and the dealer^{in-turn sellsthe vehicleafter collecting localtaxes and} commission.^{There is no contract between the customer and the} manufacturer.^{Defendants1 to 3 also challenged the maintainabilityof} lhe suit to^{recoverthe moneyby the plaintiff as plaintift is not the} customer of defendants^{4 and 5, but he was only financierto the} customers

¶166

[)n bor]t lsJ)ccts, tltc trlal Court overnrlcrl llr,, o r.jcc.tions ancl hc,lcl tite ssric n f:r()lrr ol tl,re plaintrff. Or tl).. isrs:t of pnvitv ol contr:1.t. lri. I t.r,1 .lrst.r'crl that onl-v the mirnLrllr,:l r;.t,- deli,,,crs thc vt: hicles Lo 11.. ,. , - lonlcl.s, ,.r,ht:rcas authot.izetl cllalr:r ir s. i :i m(.rc agent lor thr: r-ra rL' rltrrrcr :rrrrl rcccir.es a cornn)issjji) r ri)r its scrvice rctrclered 10 rrr: r ra.ur,.l.lrcr'. certain portior s ()f i- r d3posrtions of DWs.I to 3 , rr, r.tolc(l to holcl that defendi nts l, l] are alonc responsrbre lir rr:rivcn of vchicles and if vehi.:rcs iLrl' n rt clcrivr:red, liablc t. re lulr(r h{] rrlol).'t ro the customers. 'r re trirrr c,orrrt ob"erved thzrt th. c'ir..., r:, .l l)Ws.2 :r.cl 3 cc..,rrtr-adicls rhr. :ri.,n:e ol.DW. l. Accordrng to Il l':,2 rrncl 3, pavntents rvere r arle tr'.cruring Maruti Udyog Lirnr tcr,: ,:r-mcnts \r.erc sent to Delhi zrr d lhiri no part of the . amount \-a s lla ,lircctly 1o [he 4rh and St], defeltclarr s A(.cording to DW.ll, rvho is the l\lanagr:r of 6rh defendant, he a( te(l o r_. ins:ructions o1. manufacturer, rzrt thr: dealer t,ould incorporale tl c terms and conclitions in th: r;rclcr booking form supplied t() thc. (. lst(,mers, that Demand Drtrfl_s r h,ruld bc riralvn in favour of 1,t 1el.et-rJi nt and,.he 1sr defendant ajolrc r ould encash the same. Itelying ln t,t-,sii' d:posrtions, trial CourL drscurr eri thc clr:position of DW. 1.

¶167

Trial Clour.t ,t:servr:d tlt:rt dealer is only an Agr:n t. 1 h: becomes purchascr of rht: u rl iclc solcl b-v the manufactrrrer thc:t-r l-r sl ould have lre edont of sc.llu-Lg he vehiclt:s as per the price detcrmlr..1 b., him and to his cl.roicc of c: r-stomers, n.hereas the price parvaltle tI the vlhicle

¶168

/,\ti./ d //?^/ ( 1i'r ,\ r,' i-).(^_/,/-'1r/,'

¶169

including dealer commission is dctermincd by thc manufacturer and thc deaier is only required to collect the money as fixed by the manufacturer and dealer has no discretion to prescribe price of the vehicle. Therefore, the dealer cannot be called as separate vendor. F'urther, if dealer is an independent vendor, there was no requirement for the dealer to forward the names of the customers in a given document along with Demand Drafts to the hrst defendant. Trial Court observed that dealer acts on behalf of the manufacturer and receives fixed commission, which component is already included in the price of the veh icle.

¶170

On the issue of locus standi, trial Court observed that admittedly plaintiff paid the amount to purchase the vehicles by his customers and that plaintiff is not insisting lor delivery of the vehicles for seeking repayment of money paid by him and, therefore, he has locus standi to file the suit. Admittedly, amount was paid by the plaintiff and received by the defendarts and non-refund of money u,ould amount to undue enrichment and, therefore, hrst defendant cannot escape from liabilify to return back the money received from the plaintiff.

¶171

Extensive submissions are made by the learndd counsel for appellants and has taken through exhibits hled on behalf of the defcndants before the trial Court. According to learned counsel, there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff ald the defendants I to 3

¶172

¶173

,i 'rt):

¶174

and thilL I)iir:ii I i'zlltnol :ltinltlill) sLtil atg:trnst Itt :lr.ir t:r1 tirts its hc rs not the cr sL{,nt l ol th. r'r'lcnrl:Irts 4. 5 and I i,s ,i( (.:rse rTtii\ bc. Ex.ll2 is llre lisr ol (locLlnt(.ltLs Lnr')Lrding plaint in O.S.I,c,.-.166 ol 1998 rn I)elhi IIrgh l, Llrt. 1\r I unlnr,t page Nos. 1.t6 t,r 177 of rntrLcrial papcrs cor r[)rl,]l^(', I in^(lC (lA No..,l2 of 20O2 is thc I)r,alc- Agrcr:ment along \ritl Sir:l r.ritrles.^(tltrusc.'j of Article I dcarls, u'irh iimirs o[ authoritr..^(,llaLl: r l7 of Arti.'lt:-lV rlcals u,itl.r comrnissitr . .,\ccor.drng to this ciausr:, crt: (' sholtl(l rcceivc lrom his cust()nt{)r ;r comrnission specified lt\ tl:c )r rnp:rn-r irased orr the type of thc prcclLrt:r lrooker] and sold. Clarrsc ll rlcitls *irlt deiir,r,^, of products. Il :;p:r:ilicalh, rclcrs to sale by I he Cr n ltzLny. ll holds 1}l:1t company rvould rrot tc liaLble for any failurc. d,:l: i,. or error in deiivery or cons-quer t; tl .oss arising therefrom. It aJ ;o says tlrrrt if it is not possib e t<r s- rpplv fr-r ll1, the demand of tht:, c,rl<:r, tltc compirrly rescrves t,te rigJt to ap*r,r.,io, products !r,ltich i rC zrvail:ilr1c amOtrg its dealers rnd c ll Lcr Cust(lmers. Clause- 19 cnvisi gcs that :rfter dispatch of th,r proC .rcts; from [he company's lactc,- , the conrpan.'s liatrility in respect tl an1,defcct in the products wcr- Lrl be lirniled to the company,s tbligati,;.s uncler lhc warrantee claus,: ; nd u,ould havc no othcr lial>ilitv. Clause 35 in Article-Vlll t,rlks : brrut selling of parts to the dealer.

¶175

Frorn rhc rr rrlir-ig o1'thc 'arious clauses of thc Iit:, cr Agrer:mcnt and the dep,rsitio r :rf DW.1, il is n'ranifest that nranuf rr:tur:r derlivers the vehicle s rs 3. {h() indr:.t placcd by tht: clealet.. Wt t: I 'r:hick:s are delivered bt, thc : :rntrfacltrrer, hc does not verift as [r) ,h]cla ,.1)icle

¶176

l'\l?J .i ./.t/'i I a r'(-I 'r\ /,' );&^{)It,l :l1t):}

¶177

l.l

¶178

!{ould go to which customcr. Thc delivery^{of vchicle to thc customeris} prcrogativc of the dearlcr. The manufacturer^{doesnot maintain list ol} customers l-o whom the vehicles are delivercd.^{The authorizeddealer} only maintains payment and delivery^{registerand seniorityof thc} cusLomers for the delivery of the^vehicles.

¶179

It is the assertion of DW. I that contract for^sale of^{vehicle is} created between the dealer and the^{customerconcerned.In his}

¶180

deposition, the deponent explained^{the procedureas under:}

¶181

"The authorized dealer who receives the demand drat^deposits the samc to the ANZ Gridlays Bank^for creditrng the^{proceedsinto the} dealer control vehicle purchase account^{at DelhiAccording to the} availabrlity of the funds in the^{said dealercontrol account,the vehicles} are sold by this defendant in favour^{of itsauthorized dealers.} Defendant nos.1 to 3 cannot correlate^{the individualbookingsmade by} the customer through its authorized dealers.^{Theauthorizeddealers} are also not required to send the details^{o the customers, who have} made the bookings of the^vehicles to^{D1 to D3Defendantnos. I to 3} maintains the dealer control account indicating^{the paymentsreceived} in ANZ Grindlal,s Bank and the^{vehicles sold to its authorizeddealers} against the availability of the^{funds in the said accountDefendant} nos. I to 3 invoices the^vehicle after^{making payment of the central} sales tax and invoices the^{vehictesinfavour of various dealers.} Defendant nos.1 to 3 further^{doesnot earmark the vehicle in favourof} any individual customers.^{The authorizeddealerinvoices the vehicles} to its customers after^{paying the A.P.GeneralSales Tax and upon} receiving the ex showroom^{prevailing price at the time of the delivery.} The authorized dealers also issue the^{sale ce.rtificatein favour of their} customers. Thus, there^{is first sale by Dl toD3 infavourof} authorized dealers or enabling^{tledealer to re-sell the vehiclesin} favour of customers and as^{such there is no privity of contract} between the plaintiff and this^{defendant.The plaintiff never made} bookings either with^{D1 to D3 or D3 and D5."}

¶182

What is deposed by^{DW.2 was that plaintiff did not make} payment by cash or cheque or^{Demand Drat favouring Mahalakshmi} Motors Private^{Limited and made paymentsfavouringMarutiUdyog} Limited and all^{the payments were sent to Maruti Udyog Limited,Delhi} and that 4th defendant^{is not liable to pay suit amount in all the three} suits. In the deposition^{o[ DW.3, dePonentclearly statedthat" Maruti}

¶183

,. 1 . .;t.,

¶184

(ldyog Litrtited .::,' .s rzrltick'-s Io^{ri.s r1/r.J tt"r' sr'1/ thet't i')} ''^{i" tt)trti't-'s" Thrs} zrssertion ol^D\ ) is igno: i'rl^{iitlritri:i1 Courtor sitl'--i dLhc orher} u rvermen l s.^{IrL tlt} cross^{(-'xrlltlillilll()n1)' thc plalrtrl'i, t'V" 3 stalccl that} dcmand tlrtr lts^r ' rr':^,:.lrit* it irr^{iirrrlLlirif Nlarutt lcl ''"!Limitcclarld it} alone en^{t::ls;hc s} IrLr <icn-i:rrl<l^{rlr-lrfis atlcl u'hctlrlclrzrrrddr:t11s arc} received fro in^tlr )Llstomcrs, lltcr ',r'ould^{passl'ci e} ['l^{'on behalf of} Maruti Udl'og^t, rrilc,cl and thilt therc^{is aconditicr)in lheorder} . hr: dcak'r^{rs lloL responsible ar-rrl iht: deponcrllalso} booking forrn^th.,' stated thal^{he g(} .s commisstoll^{lor rut]tlirlg scn iccs 1o Maruti Udyog} Limited for^ltookL g1 and clclii'cn ol rhe^vchicles'

¶185

On a cllrl^{[r lconsir]t:rlttirlnof t]lcresp )Cti,erlcpositi<lrrs of} delendanr^{\'itn: iscs, itcittltlL'rbeszlid thtl lhclr: ismaterial} contradiction^{all ollg the $'iltrcsscs The trial Corrrl erred in not} properly anall'zit^{g the depositionsand exhibits mat lr:rl on behalf of} defendants^{1 trl I}

¶186

Il is rrot ir^{rlispute that rnitial payment !'asrra 1e by demand} drafts drau,n in^{,irvour of M:trutli Udyog l-imite<l. lrrorn the extracted} averments^of t)\^I ,^{iL is not iccrl that thcso amoul)ts1]t:t crecitcdto lhe} specific accou:el.^{n'aintainerl in ANZ Grindlays l)anl:, r'rhi<:h is called} 'dealer cont^{rol L'e11')le purchase'account'. Suchacr:ount;irre maintained} dealer-wise all^{,-'.,r:r the countllFor cotlvenierlce sz'k:, the clemand} drafts u,ert' drit^{vtr infar"ru r of Maruti Udyoi LlnLi ed, butt'hose} demand<lraftsLr.:creclitcdin|hc,decLlercotirtll)e:hictepurcl-tase

¶187

1',t.J( ,/./i./ ( Ll(,-l ,'0r ll ii & i I o/ :ttt):

¶188

¶189

accoutlt'. It rs the practice ln vogue in automobile sector. As explaineci by the deponcnt and as can be seen from the various clauses in the Dealer Agreement, [hc manufacturer verifies the amount lying in the 'deaLer control uehicle purchase account'of a dealer ald dispatches the vehicles based on thc amoun I accumulated in the account. At the stage of dispatch of the vehicles, the company does not verify the customers to whom the vehicles are to be delivered. It is not the responsibility of the company to deliver a particular vehicle to a particular customer. That is left to the dealer and it is the dealer's responsibility to deliver the vehicle to his customer.

¶190

46- The trial Court failed to appreciate the specihc mechanism created for the purpose of assessing the availability of funds in the 'dealer control uehicle purchase account'for delivery of vehicles as per the indent placed by the dealer. For example, if dealer places indent for 20 vehicles of dilferent models and price range, the company verilies the vehicles prices and verihes the balance amount available in the 'dealer control uehicle purchose occount'and to the extent of amount available in the account, it delivers the vehicles. In a given situation, the company may not deliver all the 20 vehicles indented if the amount is not sufficient to meet the vehicles price. There is a separate contract between the customer and the dealer and it is dealer's responsibility to deliver the vehicle booked by the customer or to refund the amount secured from him. This hner distinction is not appreciated by the trial

¶191

Court, ir' lroldir g that th,' clt'li'rlcLtinis^Ito ;lt-c reslr'rnsil>le for rcpa\rm{ r'rt o[ lht irrnount^d -tc

¶192

Manrtfat;tr r( r is^{resporlsiblc for tileq-r:rli v ri thr: vehiclc} manufactllr.ed a rl spare^{parl s prrtvidedhY rhe rnantrliu:tl| r'r. It is not} the respOnr;ilti1it^. )l^{the ntirnLtllrcLr-riCr-lor the d':frcir:n< r' irl sCI-viccby} the dealcr r;n 1t: iV8ry^{ol vchic:lcol spar(l pirrts. I1'tll|rc is tlt:fi<:icncf in} senrice in clclivel !' rf^{the vehiclc, it is the rlcalcr rvho is I esFonsilllc and} answeral;le to 1l: : :ustomcr.^{Thc terms ol the colltl ac} '^{lcarly cuvisage} Lhis and m:rkc : errr distinc:tiotr^{between the rok ol- lr it lulacturerand} the dealcr.

¶193

Thc clualir' rI senicc llroviclect br^{the de:rler' 'rlr' atL impacI on} sales of th,r vel:^tc cs ttrztnltfac^{trtrcc[ [;v t)lc corr pzt n;,r'l'herelilre, the} manufar:turer k :cps tab orl^{serl'ice provicled111 tlLe dealer and} wherever thert: r r cficiettcy itl^{scrvicc takcs remcdirrLs;t} ':^{ps. Tllr:refore,} in its owr intr rc st, delettdant^{companv requircs okt r:p I'ab on} functioning o1 : rlealer. That^{does not meanitrs le sl>onsible for} deficiency o1'sr:rr ic: lty the^{rlealcr. HavingloundthiLt.<le ien'lants 4 and} 5 committcd slrr ral irregularitics and^{u'ere 'rot p t' ,vioingquality} service to lhe^{c- :s'otncrs,} it^{l.rasterminaledtht d,r,,Ll:r'shi:sand has} initiated crimirta ancl^{civil a.ction.}

¶194

Il is the r' s tonsibilitv^{ol the authorized clcalcr t,; is suc it-tvoice} and sak: c,:rtifi<,rLc to its^{<:tlston'rcrancl} t:harg'^{lor:eti sale'stzrx and} commissior anr:^r, redit the local sales tirx to^{tl.re Si1at e (lovernment}

¶195

/,,,(.,/ & J5( J (^-( ('/ ,'oj Jl t: & / I ol )0t):

¶196

¶197

Trcasury. Thc transaclion bctnt r:n the dcaler and its customer concludes on the delivery of the vehrcle to the customer. Whereas, the sale of a vehicle betu'een the company and the authorized dealer concludes as soon as thc vchiclc is handed over to the transporter for dealer's destination.

¶198

Thus, there <sup>ras no privitl, 66 contract between plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3. The relationship between defendants 4 and 5 and defendants 1 to 3 is on the basis of principal to principal as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in identical fact situation in Indian oil Corporation vs. Consumer Protection Council, Keralal,

¶199

51 . On the issuc of locus standi also, the trial Court erred in holding in favor of the plaintiff. Plaintiff is a finance company, which enters into hire purchase agreements with its customers to^provide finances to the customers to purchase vehicles. They are called ?rire^purchase agreements'. On entering into agreement,^plaintiff releases^{the money} to the customer. However, instead of^paying the money directly to^the customer, the plaintiff seems to have adopted the^mechanism of^paying initial amount to book a^vehicle with^{the dealer directly and arrange} the full amount at the lime of^{delivery of the vehicle. It is only a} convenience and understanding^{between the plaintiff and its} customers. But its customers^{are the actual customers} to^{the vehicle} dealer and the agreement^{to deliver the vehicle is between the customer} '.

¶200

'^{(t994) I scc39?}

¶201

¶202

and thc d,_.:rl,:r. Mcrelv^{becauseplatinlill ar-ra;lgcc[ .- r: i rittal r.ehic]c} booking lnon(lv i . does^{not stcp into thc shocs o '} 'l^{r: r:tlstorter' take} therolco].theLrSlomerL()prosccutclitrgatirlr.L.rgairsl'hcdealcrarrd lhe l]laiul'rctur^{:r of the vehicle,as in thesc c S( s. ,rrt} 'ttl: rate, there is absolutely n()⁽ flrtractual^{relationship bet$.centh,:} 1;lzlilrtrff^:rndLhe defendar-rts 1 3. Merely becausc Demancl^{Dralt ;u'e 'e rlrau'n lor} initral vehiclt:s broking^{amount lavourtng Maruri -lrilo'l Limitcd, iL} does not crcat,: r()lationship^{with plaintiff and ssrtt: o: r:r forcement of} contrac| with tl e defendants^{1 to 3 does not ar se'l h :re bre, the trial} Court gross[1'^,:rred in^{l-rolding [hat plzlntif- Iras 'octts 'slandlin} instituting tLLe strits ancl claim^{to refund the atno} 'l^{rts paid by ths} piaintiff,

¶203

Thus, the i:,sue^{is hr:ld in favour of defencant:'Io li and against} the plaintrif.

¶204

ISSUE No.2:

¶205

The hr.di rgs recorded by the trial Cour^{on pr vity of contract} and locus stort li are not sustainable. That^{br:ing so, the trial Court} grossly erred ir holding the issues in favour of^r he ;r1^{rr:rtifl and against} the appellant^s C,nce issue no. 1 is decided in^{fe vo} ur :1^{cle [cndants1 to} 3, all other iss rr:s fall to the ground. The^juc grrler t:: attd^clccreesof trial Courl ulrrl r Appeal are not sustainable-

¶206

¶207

P\R./ t* ./.\k.1 ('(.4'1 \os ./1. 5t & 1t of )t)t):

¶208

¶209

ISSUE NO.3:

¶210

54 With the result, Appcals art' :rllou,ed and the judgments and decrees made by the trial Court irr O.S.No.96 of 1998, O.S.No.95 of 1998 and O.S.No.558 of 1998 are sel aside. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall s,"and closcd

¶211

Sd/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINHISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶212

SECTION OFFICER

¶213

¶214

The lll Additional Chief J_udge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. 2. The Official Liquidator, 1st Ftool, Corpbrate Bhavan, Aa,iOtagudi, ilagote, Hyderabad.{ r J It,r i I

¶215

3 One CC tb SRl. N VIJAY Advocate [OpUC] llr I r i

¶216

One CC 'It' to SRl. MR J. SRINADHA REDDY COUNSEL FOR OL loPUCl i

¶217

TwoCD Copi^lr es

¶218

i
Copi lr es
*
rII
1
i II
t t
i
l

¶219

i J
+
ll
i. I
I i
li t
lr I
.

¶220

HIGH COURT

¶221

Itr DATED 02103,2023'

COMMON JUI)GMENT

a lil {

CITY CIVIL COl. RT APPEAL NOS: 42,

¶227

,i1', it . St,';.i
/,
I r\J\ 2$B j
).
<br>../

¶228

il. 55 AND 71 oF:1002 'lrl

¶229

ALI-OWING'I-HI. At,L,^.\I'PEALS

WII'IIOLI I COSI-S

u0
{
€, t"*
\l

l{ I
,;l

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} . 1^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶236

THURSDAY ,THE^{SECONDDAYOF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶237

PRESENT

¶238

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEP. NAVEENRAO} rIAND

¶239

ile nonounlgue^{snt JUSTIcEJ' sREENlvAs RAo}

¶240

.t I oF 2002 clw clvlL cOURTAP PEAL^{NOS:42,55AND 7}

¶241

:l I c c.A. NoI oF 2002 Between:^trttl

¶242

1 MAIU:I^y""&Hli'??o.'Ji',JJiI',,'."il31ir,lfi^[tl]";io?'""'oaGandhi

¶243

2 ,;rii, udroo^{Limited , 11'h Floor, Jewan Prakash} '^{25' Kasturba Gandhi} iiEE]lr'6;b'"ii;i-'iiobot^{rep b v its Executive Director}

¶244

3 ,;'rJi, ,oroo^{Limited 1'lrh Floor, Jewan.Prakash'.2-5' KasturbaGandhi} ilili.ul'r.i#b%rn-i'_"r"r-oo'or^{|.l,pliill,iiis""iorExecutive Mr. KevinPoppin} i

¶245

(GPd Holder^{of all appellants rep' by S' Ravi Aiyar)}

¶246

...APPELLANTS/^{Defendants1 to 3} ,il

¶247

AND

¶248

I I DCL Chambers ' 1.M DCL FINANCE lTD., Situated^{ast 6-3-569/1'} Somajiguda,^{HyderabadrePresentedbY its Dy. Manager(legal)K.V.} Prasad^S /o.^{K.VSubbaiah, 42 Years'tlo.6-3-569/1,DCLChambers,} Somajigu^{da, Hyderabad} I t{ l { z. ruirirrl*.i^{Motors Li;ited,No' 4' MotilalNehru Road' Begumpet'} ' 'ffi;;;6il itpi!."rlt"a uv its Manasins^Director

¶249

R.K.S.Motors^{Pvt. Limited, 6-3-905' Saboo Towers' RajbhavanRoad'} " $;;ji?ft;,-Hvd'erabad iep' bv its Manasins^Director

¶250

The Official^{Liquidator,1st Floor' Corporate Bhavan' Bandlaguda' Nagole'} Hyderabad.

¶251

( R - 4 is impleaded as^{perCourt order dated18-OB-2O22vide l'A'No' 1 of 2022} in CCCa No.^{42 of 2002 )}

¶252

...RESPONDENTS

¶253

¶254

Appeal Under:!,-.ction 9'6 of C.P.C. , 1908 against the .lrrd,Inr:nt and decree dated^'14-08-200'1 in^(: s No. 96 of 1998 on the file of the lourl ,,i the lil Additionat Chief Judge, Citl,Civil rlourt, Hyderabad. ,it

¶255

c.c.c.A. No. 55 0F 2l02i

¶256

Between:^j

¶257

1 Martti.Udyo i I r-imited^', i-'rth Froor, Jewan prak:rsh ,25 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New t,elhi - 11000.1 rep.b y its Managing Direclo.

¶258

2- Maruti.udyg r r-imited-,^'1 1'n Froor, Jewan prakash , 25 Kasturba Gandhi [\4arg, New i elhi - 11000.1 rep.b yits Executive )ireckrr

¶259

3- Maruti. udyc I Limif-g^ ^1Jth Froor, Jewan prakzsh :2r; Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New t ethi- 1i0001 rep by its Senior Eiiiuriv"-rr,r'i"ri,ii,"Ipi'iii

...r\PPELLANTS

AND

1 M/S DCL^trINANCE LTD Situated ast 6-3-569/1 , DCI- C hambers

¶264

Somajigu 1a, Hyderabad represented byitsD '/. [\4ar a,:ler i legal) K.V Prasad S^.1. K.V. Subbaiah, 42 years, r/o. 6-3 569/'l , l.)CL Chambers, Somajig u la, Hyderabad

¶265

¶266

2 Mahalaxl i Moto rS Limited, No. 4, Motilal Nelrru Roar B:gumpet,

¶267

I^{Hyderabzd'epresented} by its Managing Dire<;tor {

¶268

( R -2 Dismis sed for default Court Order dated B-11-20 3 J l R.K.S.Mc ols Pvt Limited, 6-3-905, Saboo T,rwers. Fiajb havan Road, Somajigu ia Hyd,e rabad rep. by its Managing Direc:or

¶269

4 The Officr tl Liquidator, 1st Floor, Corporate Bravan i:anrllaguda, Nagole, l-^,lcerabad.

¶270

( R -^4 is impleadec a; per Court oider dated 18_08_2022 virlc A.l'lo. 1 of 2022 in CCCa No. a2 of 2 rXr2')

¶271

.. RESPONDENTS

¶272

Appeal Under sr ctron g6 of c.p.c. , 1g0g against the JuJgment and decree dated 14-08-200" in c S No. 558 of 1998 on tf,e fire of thr i)ourr oJlhu rrr Additional Chief Judge, ,3ity Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶273

c.c.c.A. No. 71 0F 2002

¶274

Between:

¶275

1., Maruti Udyog Limited 1 1rh Floor, Jewan prakash , 25, Kasturba ' Gandhi Marg, New Delhi - 110001 rep.b y its Managing Director

¶276

2.r Maruti Udyog Limited 1 1th Floor, Jewan Prakash , 25, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi -^{'l '10001} rep.b y its Executive Director

¶277

3.1 Maruti Udyog Limited 11h Floor, Jewan Prakash, 25, Kasturba Gandhi i^Marg, New Delhi - 110001 rep. by its Senior Executive Mr. Kevin Poppin

¶278

¶279

( All Appellants rep. by its GPA Holder Sri S. Ravi lyer ) ll',^r r r AND li^,

¶280

...AppELLANrs

¶281

,lllfia;". rrrunr.r8e:r-ro., Situated ast 6-3-s6e/1, DCL chambers, I^Somajiguda, fVdgrabad^{represented by its Dy. Manager ( legat) K.V.} I^{Prasad S/o.K.V. Subbaiah,42 yearc,r/o. 6-3-569/'1} ,^DCLChambers, I^{Somajiguda,Hyderabad.}

¶282

¶283

2.1 Mahalaxmi Motors LimiteO, No. 4, Motilal Nehru Road, Begumpet, i^{Hyderabad representedby its Managing Director}

¶284

sl^lMihuhrri Moto* Limiteo ,40-1-41, M.G. Road Lobbipet, Vijayawada i^{-10, rep. by its Director, Vijayawada.}

¶285

¶286

4{ R.K.S.Motors Pvt! Limited, 6-3-905, Saboo Towers, Rajbhavan Road, I Somajiguda, Hyderabad rep. by its Managing Director

¶287

5.' rThe Of{icial Liquidator, 1st Floor, Corporate Bhavan, Bandlaguda, I^{Nagole, Hyderabad.} * lll r ( R - 5 iS impleaded as per Court order dated 18-OB-2O22 vide l.A.No. 1 ot 2022 in CCCA Nol 71 of 2002 ) I ...RESPONDENTS ll;r i I

¶288

Appe'al Under Section 96 of C.P.C. , 1908 against the Judgment and decree dated 14-08-2001 in O.S.No.9S of 1998 on the file of the Court of the llt Additional ChieflJridge, City Ciriil Court, Hyderabad.

¶289

These appeals coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, theJudgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N. Vijay Advocate for the Appellants in all appeals and Sri J. Srinadh Reddy , Counsel for Official Liquidator who did not appear for the Respondent in all appeals and this Cqurt doth COMMON Judgment and DECREE as follows:-

¶290

That all the a3p€,al^, ; re be and here by allowed and the Jtr(^qrnertt and decrees made by the trial C)cr rt in O.S.No. 96 of 1998, O S.No 95 r l99il and O.S.No. 558 of 1998 be and h,^,r( by are set aside^.

¶291

il
S..I -I; .SR I\ I/.\S,\ RAO
lrI
.1 )t'f RI-(its fRAR
To
,. : -U)
.tL .ttor,t ol ft(Lp
'l . The lll'Addition: I )hief Judge, City Civil Courl. Hydr,lrabar
2. Two C.D,rlopie .,
.l-
)--
lr
i
ti!
tt
I I
.i ,i
I
T
I
lI
i
I

¶292

ⁱ \

¶293

I^,d 1 HIGH COURT

¶294

it DATED 0210312023 I ; t i t { COMMONIDEC REE I t { ctTY clvlE cou RT APPEAL^{NOS: 42} I 55 AND 711OF Jt "t002 .l . l ,

¶295

ALLOWING TTII] A.-I^APPEALS WITHOLJT COS-IS

Maruti Udyog Ltd. NEWDELHIAND2 v. M/S.Dcl Finance Ltd. HYDAND2

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruti Udyog Ltd. NEWDELHIAND2 v. M/S.Dcl Finance Ltd. HYDAND2

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Sree Durga Estates Vs J.a.S.Padmaja and 7 others

M/s Sree Durga Estates Vs J.a.S.Padmaja

Jayaprakash Rao Dhote Vs M/s. Abhishek Agarwal Arts LLP and 6 others

Maruthi Udyog Ltdand Ors. Vs DCL.FIN.LTD,7 Ors.

M/S.Maruti Udyog Ltd.,Nd and 2 Ors. Vs M/S.Dcl Finance Ltd.,Hyd and 2 Ors.

M/s. Ranganath Properties Pvt. Ltd. and 15 others Vs Phoenix Tech Zone Pvt. Ltd.and 2 others