Case: M/S. Sify Ltd Vs. M/S. First Couriers Ltd

3. The contention of the defendant that a close scan of the plaintiffs suit would show that it is based on accounts and not on invoices and therefore, the summary suit was not maintainable cannot be said to be frivolous. 4. The defendant has been able to raise triable issues. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the judgment of the Division Bench as well as of the learned Single Judge in detail, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned single judge, granting conditional leave to the respondent to defend the suit, ought not to have been interfered with by the Division Bench as (i) the order of the learned Single Judge was a discretionary order and (ii) the amount of Rs. 15 Lacs was already deposited by the respondent. In view of the aforesaid admitted fact, the Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have interfered with the discretionary order of the learned Single Judge granting conditional leave to defend to the respondent when no case was made out by the respondent that the said order was either arbitrary or unreasonable. The order of the learned Single Judge imposing the condition for deposit of Rs. 15 Lacs on the respondent to defend the suit cannot be, in our view, said to be an arbitrary or unreasonable order. As noted herein earlier, it is an admitted position that in compliance with the order of the learned Single Judge, the deposit of Rs. 15 Lacs was duly made by the respondent. Therefore, it is clear that the respondent had practically complied with the order of the learned Single Judge and for this reason, it was not open to the Division Bench to interfere with the discretionary order of the learned Single Judge. 10. It is also an admitted finding that the respondent used the services of the appellant and failed to pay the outstanding dues despite various demands. The learned Single Judge, after noting down the contentions of the appellant that the amount paid by the respondent was not towards service charges but it was towards installation charges which they were liable to pay even though the services were not rendered at the relevant time and that there was no deficiency of service and after looking at the correspondence between the parties, found no merit in the defence put up by the respondent. The learned Single Judge also observed that there was no material evidence to show that there was any such deficiency of service of the appellant not providing services to the respondent. A close scrutiny of the record, in our view, would indicate that no material was produced to show that the respondent had complained about the deficiency in service prior to 26th of June, 2002. The learned Single Judge, after considering, inter alia, the contention of the appellant that the appellant had waived the service charges and not the installation charges, granted leave to defend the suit to the respondent on deposit of Rs. 15 Lacs. That apart, from the available record, we are of the view that the respondent had not satisfied even the Division Bench that it was entitled to defend its case without any condition. From the materials produced by the respondent, it would also be evident that it was liable to pay for the services provided by the appellant. The letter dated 26th of June, 2002 produced by the respondent claiming for the first time after 2000 that there was deficiency of service must be, prima facie, found to be an afterthought exercise on the part of the respondent. The materials, as admitted by the respondent, would clearly show that the respondent was making payments towards various invoices raised by the appellant. It is also evident from the record that the respondent did not raise any such claim regarding deficiency of service when the appellant was demanding its past balance/dues for the services rendered. It also appears from the record that the appellant has established that the respondent remitted certain sums against various invoices raised by it and that the respondent did not raise any question about the deficiency of service earlier. Once the respondent admitted its liability to pay for the services rendered by the appellant, it was not open to it to repudiate the same by taking a stand that the services provided by the appellant were deficient. In any view of the matter, the Division Bench granted unconditional leave to defend to the respondent without considering any of the materials produced by the parties. In view of the aforesaid findings, which, of course, are prima facie in nature, it would not be unwise for this court to hold that the condition (e), enumerated in the decision of this court in M/s. Mechelec Engineers & Manufacturers Vs. M/s. Basic Equipment Corporation [supra], as noted herein earlier, was satisfied in the present case and accordingly, the conditional leave granted by the learned Single Judge was a proper order, which the Division Bench ought not to have interfered with. At the risk of repetition, we may also note that the respondent had also accepted the order of the learned Single Judge and complied with the condition imposed therein. In view of the discussions made herein above, we are, therefore, of the view that the Division Bench was not justified in interfering with the discretionary order of the learned Single Judge granting conditional leave to defend to the respondent on deposit of Rs. 15 Lacs. We, therefore, hold that when the respondent had duly complied with the conditions imposed by the learned Single Judge in its discretionary order, the Division Bench was not justified in interfering with such discretionary order. In any view of the matter, we are of the view that the order of the Division Bench, granting leave to the respondent without any condition, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not justified. 11. For the reasons aforesaid,

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]going through the judgment of the Division Bench as well as of the learned Single Judge in detail, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned single judge, granting conditional leave to the respondent to defend the suit, ought not to have been interfered with by the Division Bench as (i) the order of the learned Single Judge was a discretionary order and (ii) the amount of Rs. 15 Lacs was already deposited by the respondent. In view of the aforesaid admitted fact, the Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have interfered with the discretionary order of the learned Single Judge granting conditional leave to defend to the respondent when no case was made out by the respondent that the said order was either arbitrary or unreasonable. The order of the learned Single Judge imposing the condition for deposit of Rs. 15 Lacs on the respondent to defend the suit cannot be, in our view, said to be an arbitrary or unreasonable order. As noted herein earlier, it is an admitted position that in compliance with the order of the learned Single Judge, the deposit of Rs. 15 Lacs was duly made by the respondent. Therefore, it is clear that the respondent had practically complied with the order of the learned Single Judge and for this reason, it was not open to the Division Bench to interfere with the discretionary order of the learned Single Judge10. It is also an admitted finding that the respondent used the services of the appellant and failed to pay the outstanding dues despite various demands. The learned Single Judge, after noting down the contentions of the appellant that the amount paid by the respondent was not towards service charges but it was towards installation charges which they were liable to pay even though the services were not rendered at the relevant time and that there was no deficiency of service and after looking at the correspondence between the parties, found no merit in the defence put up by the respondent. The learned Single Judge also observed that there was no material evidence to show that there was any such deficiency of service of the appellant not providing services to the respondent. A close scrutiny of the record, in our view, would indicate that no material was produced to show that the respondent had complained about the deficiency in service prior to 26th of June, 2002. The learned Single Judge, after considering, inter alia, the contention of the appellant that the appellant had waived the service charges and not the installation charges, granted leave to defend the suit to the respondent on deposit of Rs. 15 Lacs. That apart, from the available record, we are of the view that the respondent had not satisfied even the Division Bench that it was entitled to defend its case without any condition. From the materials produced by the respondent, it would also be evident that it was liable to pay for the services provided by the appellant. The letter dated 26th of June, 2002 produced by the respondent claiming for the first time after 2000 that there was deficiency of service must be, prima facie, found to be an afterthought exercise on the part of the respondent. The materials, as admitted by the respondent, would clearly show that the respondent was making payments towards various invoices raised by the appellant. It is also evident from the record that the respondent did not raise any such claim regarding deficiency of service when the appellant was demanding its past balance/dues for the services rendered. It also appears from the record that the appellant has established that the respondent remitted certain sums against various invoices raised by it and that the respondent did not raise any question about the deficiency of service earlier. Once the respondent admitted its liability to pay for the services rendered by the appellant, it was not open to it to repudiate the same by taking a stand that the services provided by the appellant were deficient. In any view of the matter, the Division Bench granted unconditional leave to defend to the respondent without considering any of the materials produced by the parties. In view of the aforesaid findings, which, of course, are prima facie in nature, it would not be unwise for this court to hold that the condition (e), enumerated in the decision of this court in M/s. Mechelec Engineers & Manufacturers Vs. M/s. Basic Equipment Corporation [supra], as noted herein earlier, was satisfied in the present case and accordingly, the conditional leave granted by the learned Single Judge was a proper order, which the Division Bench ought not to have interfered with. At the risk of repetition, we may also note that the respondent had also accepted the order of the learned Single Judge and complied with the condition imposed therein. In view of the discussions made herein above, we are, therefore, of the view that the Division Bench was not justified in interfering with the discretionary order of the learned Single Judge granting conditional leave to defend to the respondent on deposit of Rs. 15 Lacs. We, therefore, hold that when the respondent had duly complied with the conditions imposed by the learned Single Judge in its discretionary order, the Division Bench was not justified in interfering with such discretionary order. In any view of the matter, we are of the view that the order of the Division Bench, granting leave to the respondent without any condition, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not justified.