S.D.S. SHIPPING PVT. LTD. versus JAY CONTAINER SERVICES CO. PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 101 · Decided: 08-05-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
.) 
S.D.S. SHIPPING PVT. LTD. 
A 
V. 
JAY CONTAINER SERVICES CO. PVT. LTD. AND ORS. 
MAY 8, 2003 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article I 36-/nterim order to deposit certain 
amount by High Court-Interference with-Held: Power under Article I 36 is 
exercised only on showing substantial injustice, and not for mere technical C 
flaws in a proceedings-On facts there being some faulty conclusions in law 
and direction being an interim order, thus not fit case for interference-
However to meet ends of justice direction issued to deposit Rs 50 lakhs instead 
of Rs. 82 lakhs. 
Respondents are engaged in supply of containers for the ships to D 
carry goods from one place to another. It supplied containers to the 
appellant from time to time. Parties entered into a lease agreement for 
use of leased containers. Agreement expired but was extended for one 
month. Appellant did not return the containers during the extended period 
and thereafter. Respondent filed suit for recovery which included the claim 
for non-return of the containers and outstanding rental. Respondent took E 
out a motion for Receiver and injunction for the containers not returned. 
Single Judge of High Court rejected the motion, however, granted liberty 
to the respondent to take out the appropriate proceedings for a direction 
to appellant to deposit the arrears of rent. Division Bench upheld the order. 
Respondent took another notice of motion praying that appellant be F 
directed to deposit arrears of rent. Single Judge held that the power of 
the court under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC dealing with decree on admission 
could not be invoked and also that respondent could not invoke the 
inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC. Respondent challenged the 
order. Division Bench upholding the order of Single Judge directed 
appellant to deposit Rs.82 lakhs. Hence the present appeal. 
G 
Respondent no. I contended that the appellant has taken advantage 
of its own wrong doings, it had taken the containers on lease and in terms 
of Clause 6 of the agreement it had to pay rental charges till the containers 
are returned which has admittedly not been done; that there are several 
101 
fl 
102 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A letters where there was express acceptance of the liability; and that this 
is not a case where this Court should exercise powers under Article 136 
of the Constitution. 
Appellants contended that in a summary suit under Order 37 where 
there was dispute regarding the liability, the Division Bench erred in 
B directing to deposit the amount; and while implicitly upholding that Order 
12 Rule 6 was not applicable, it could not have applied Order 39 Rule 10 
of the Code with the help of Section 151 which operates in an entirely 
different background; that the Division Bench committed factual error 
in observing that there was no clear denial to the claim of the respondent 
C and/or that its stand was an evasive one and at times in the nature of an 
afterthought; that the claim as made clearly exaggerated without any 
foundation or basis and neither in law nor equity respondent was entitled 
to any relief; that it is accepted that at the most the respondent may be 
entitled to the arrears of rentals and nothing beyond that; that the question 
of making any payment for the rentals after expiry of the agreement period 
D is also not contemplated in law; that there was no termination of the 
agreement and on the contrary it lost it currency after the extended period 
of one month beyond the initially stipulated bst date; that the scope and 
ambit of Article 136 is too well known and, therefore, where substantial 
question of law relating to jurisdiction of a commercial court is raised, 
E the Court has to see whether the impugned judgment meets the 
requirement of law; and that it is too futile to contend that Article 136 
will not be exercised in a case of this nature where the Division Bench of 
High Court clearly acted contrary to well-settled principle of law. 
F 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The order impugned is an interim order. The direction is 
for deposit and no liberty has been granted to the respondent for 
withdrawal after the deposit. There was no serious dispute relating to the 
claim for arrears of rentals. Admittedly, 92 containers were leased out by 
the respondent to the appellant according to whom some of the containers 
G were not traceable and were lost

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.