LexUNIWORLD LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. versus INDEV LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1071 : 2024 INSC 515 Uniworld Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 7308 of 2024) 10 July 2024 [Vikram Nath* and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether a second suit for arrears of rent and damages would be maintainable or barred under Order II Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code (CPC) if a prior suit was filed seeking a permanent injunction and the handover of vacant possession, especially after the plaintiff explicitly reserved the right in the first suit to pursue claims regarding arrears of rent and damages separately and was granted leave to file a separate suit. Headnotes† Leave and Licence Agreement – Entered between the Appellant and Respondent – Superseded by another licence agreement whereby Appellant became a licensee concerning the warehouse – Appellant defaulted in paying storage charges – Respondent instituted a suit for permanent injunction and to hand over vacant possession – Respondent specifically pleaded that it reserves its rights to claim arrears of rent and damages – Appellant filed counter suits – Respondent sought and was granted leave to file a separate suit vide an application under Order II Rule 2(3) CPC – Respondent filed a second suit claiming arrears of rent and damages – Appellant filed an application under Order VI Rule 11(d) read with Order II Rule 2 CPC – High Court dismissed revision petition challenging order granting leave to file a separate suit and application under Order VI Rule 11(d) read with Order II Rule 2 CPC. Held: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision in light of the ruling in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. ATM Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC Online SC 1614 – The Supreme Court held that the case was on a better footing because: (1) the plaintiff/respondent reserved the right to claim arrears of rent and damages separately, and (2) the two suits arise from separate causes of action. [Paras 16-18] * Author 1072 [2024] 7 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Case Law Cited Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. ATM Constructions Pvt. Ltd., [2023] 16 SCR 859 : 2023 SCC Online SC 1614 – relied upon. Shankar Lal Laxminarayan Rathi & Ors. v. Gangabisen Manik Lal Silchi and another, AIR 1972 Bom. 326 (FB) – referred to. List of Acts Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. List of Keywords Rejection of plaint; Leave and License agreement; Termination of agreement; Permanent injunction; Arrear of rent; Damages; Separate cause of action; Separate suit; Maintainability; Order II Rule 2 CPC; Order VI Rule 11(d) CPC; Section 151 CPC. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7308 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 24.11.2016 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CRPPD No. 1872 of 2016 Appearances for Parties Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., K. K. Mani, Rathina Asohan, Ms. T. Archana, Rajeev Gupta, Advs. for the Appellant. Aditya Kumar Choudhary, Sandeep Pandey, Gurmehar Vaan Singh, M.V. Shreedhar, Mrs. Rosetta Veena Ekka, Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Vikram Nath, J. 1. Delay, if any, is condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. This appeal assails the correctness of the judgment and order dated 24.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras whereby, it dismissed the civil revision registered as CRP(PD) No.1872 of 2016 and also an application under Order VII Rule 11 [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1073 Uniworld Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd. CPC registered as Application No.3666 of 2016 in Commercial Suit No.323 of 2016. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant in both the proceedings is before this Court. 4. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal is as follows: A Leave and License agreement was originally entered into between the appellant and the respondent on 25.11.2008. This agreement was superseded by another agreement dated 01/12/2010 whereby the appellant became a licensee in respect of a warehouse on a monthly license fee of Rs.30 lakhs with an escalation clause. As there was default in payment of storage charges, the respondent gave a legal notice dated 27.11.2014 terminating the license, claiming dues towards storage charges, damages and directing the appellant to vacate the warehouse premises within two months. The appellant replied to the said notice on 18.12.2014 denying the dues and also raising some objections regarding extent of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.