Whether the non-filling of a statement of truth in a commercial suit makes the pleading or plaint non-est ?

-

 




Shubham Budhiraja[1]


Company A has filed a commercial suit against Company B regarding the recovery of money for the job work. Company B was proceeded ex-parte. The learned trial court decreed the suit. Company-B filed an appeal under Section 96 CPC r/w Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It raised two questions of law: (i) The trial court had no territorial jurisdiction as no cause of action had arisen in Delhi; (ii) The complaint was non-est in law as it was filed without a statement of truth. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that[1]:

 

(i)              The Legislature had, in its wisdom, intentionally laid great stress on the filing of the Statement of Truth along with the plaint, in support thereof, to reduce the time spent in the litigation by parties.

 

(ii)                      The delay in filing of the same may be considered as a procedural irregularity, however, the filing of the same would be mandatory. Moreover, the filing of the Statement of Truth and the limitation thereafter provided for filing of the same is restrictive in nature and cannot be extended endlessly nor can the plaint and the documents annexed thereto be read in evidence.

 

(iii)                    This has great significance since sub rule (4) and (5) of Rule 15A of Order VI of CPC as amended by CC Act mandate the filing of the Statement of Truth and also prescribe the effect of such non filing.

 

(iv)                     It is clear that the parties are not permitted to rely upon the said pleadings by virtue of sub rule (4) and simultaneously the Court is empowered to strike out a pleading which is not supported by the statement of truth, prescribed by sub rule (5) of Rule 15A of Order VI of CPC as amended by CC Act.

 

(v)                       In the present case, it is admitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the Statement of Truth indeed, was never filed either with the plaint or any time later at all.

 

(vi)                     Keeping this fact in view, we are of the opinion that the same would fall within the purview of issue of law and hold that the plaint itself is non est and could not have been read in evidence either.

 

(vii)                   The documents placed before the learned Trial Court by the plaintiff, like the Certificate of Incorporation apparently establish that it was incorporated at Noida, Uttar Pradesh and not Delhi. The address at Delhi is referred to as the address for correspondence. By no stretch of imagination can the address of correspondence confer jurisdiction upon a particular Court when the actual place of its incorporation is distinct.

 

(viii)                 The plaintiff submits that order of job work was issued at Delhi. However, learned counsel was unable to show even a single document in the nature of order for job work on record. Even the pleadings on this aspect were vague, lacking in material particulars. The absence of any documentary evidence also does not lend credence to the version of the plaintiff regarding part cause of action having arisen in Delhi, resulting in our holding that the Delhi Courts had no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the lis.

 


[1] M/s A V Industries v. M/s Neo Neon Electrical Pvt Limited, RFA (Comm) 2/2021, Judgment dated 01/09/2023

[1] Advocate, Delhi High Court [LLB, ACS, BCOM(H)], Budhirajalawchambers@gmail.com , +91-9654055315

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

REPUGANCY UNDER ARTICLE 254 & TEST OF VALIDATING LAW

-
Image
  Shubham Budhiraja [1] [1] Company Secretary, LLB Final Year,DU & Bcom (H) The land acquisition falls in concurrent list and parliament in year 2013 has introduced a new act which provides for rehabilitation, compensation and procedure on land acquisition of property. The State of T.N has made 3 different state laws w.r.t. land acquisition which was struck off by the High Court. Thereafter, state of TN in year 2019 enacted the same law but with president assent under Article 254 to avoid the repugnancy with 2013 act under Article 254. The appeal filed before apex court w.r.t. repugnancy of 2019 state law with 2013 central law & test of validating the struck off law. The Supreme Court observed as: VALIDATING A LAW WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT Case Law Relevant Remarks National  Agricultural  Cooperative  Marketing  Federation  of India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union o...
Read more

Whether a person can be appointed as an arbitrator if his daughter is married to the son of the eldest brother of one of the parties in the arbitration proceedings?

-
Image
    Shubham Budhiraja [1] Two brothers running a family business in the form of a company and dispute arise between them and both decide to resolve through arbitration. During course of arbitration proceedings, one of party filed Section 14(2) r/w Section 15 Petition filed challenging mandate of arbitrator as being terminated because son of arbitrator is married to daughter of eldest brother of one of party and thus should be disqualified under Section 12(5) being ‘close family relationship’. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court declined the relief and held that neither the Seventh Schedule of the A&C Act nor the IBA Guidelines define the expression ‘close family relationship’. The plain language of Entry no. 9 indicates that it is not the legislative intent to render a distant relative of the parties to be ineligible for being appointed as an arbitrator, if both the parties so agree. It is not sufficient that the arbitrator is related to any one of the parties; the relation...
Read more

Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?

-
Image
  Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?   Under what circumstances, photocopy of agreement to sell can be relied upon as secondary evidence?   Shubham Budhiraja [1]   A filed a suit for possession against B on basis of agreement to sell executed in the year 1989. During the hearing, A filed IA for reading photocopy of agreement to sell as secondary evidence because he is not able to find the original agreement to sell. The Trial Court allowed the IA but in review rejected that because agreement to sell was insufficiently stamped therefore bar of section 35 of stamp act applies. The High Court confirmed the order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that bar of Section 35 will not apply because amendment of 1990 wherein explanation was added to the stamp act was substantive in nature and therefore new obligation of stamping cannot be imposed on agreement of sell executed between A and B. [2] ...
Read more