Summary Judgment Under Order XIII-A CPC Permissible Where Defendant Raises No Credible Or Bona Fide Defence: Calcutta High Court

The Court was hearing an application seeking summary judgment in a commercial suit for recovery of money, where the defendants had forfeited their right to file a written statement and sought to resist the claim on the basis of documents and assertions raised in an affidavit.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy, while explaining the scope of summary judgment under Order XIII-Aof CPC, observed: “The court may give summary judgment, inter alia, against the defendant if it considers that the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and if there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence.”

Advocate Shuvasish Sengupta appeared for the plaintiff, while Advocate Sorosij Dasgupta appeared for the defendants.

Background

The dispute arose in a commercial suit filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of outstanding dues arising from the supply of goods to the defendants. The plaintiff claimed that goods were sold and delivered, part payments were made, and a substantial amount remained unpaid.

The plaintiff relied on invoices, ledger statements jointly signed by both parties, and a balance confirmation acknowledging the outstanding liability. It was further contended that despite service of a demand notice, the defendants failed to discharge the admitted liability.

The defendants, while opposing the application for summary judgment, raised disputes regarding the quality of goods, the existence of contractual arrangements, and the genuineness of certain documents relied upon by the plaintiff. However, the defendants had forfeited their right to file a written statement under the provisions governing commercial suits.

The plaintiff contended that in the absence of a written statement and in light of a clear acknowledgement of liability, no defence could be sustained, and the case warranted summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC.

Court’s Observation

The Court began by analysing the statutory framework of Order XIII-A CPC, as introduced pursuant to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, noting that the provision enables courts to deliver summary judgment without recording oral evidence where the conditions under Rule 3 are satisfied.

It observed that the provision is intended to facilitate expeditious disposal of commercial disputes by providing an independent mechanism to bypass trial in cases where the defence lacks substance. The Court emphasised that the jurisdiction under Order XIII-A is to be exercised where the defendant has no real prospect of defending the claim and no compelling reason exists to proceed to trial.

Elaborating on the nature of such jurisdiction, the Court held: “Order XIIIA has been incorporated in the legislation by the framers of law with the objective of the CC Act for speedy disposal of commercial disputes with an independent summary mechanism so that if the party can satisfy the tests laid down therein would not have to wait a longer period for trial.”

The Court further clarified that the provision operates on the premise that the party seeking summary judgment has established a clear and unimpeachable case, while the defence raised by the opposite party must be credible and bona fide to warrant a trial.

It observed: “The provision presumes that the party seeking a summary judgment has established a crystal clear case to which the other party would have no defense or credible and bona fide defense… If the defence… is exhibited as moonshine or a result of an afterthought… there will be no impediment to pass a summary judgment without travelling through the process of trial.”

The Court emphasised that a mere denial or unsupported allegation would not constitute a valid defence. It held that a credible defence must be demonstrated through pleadings and supported by material evidence, failing which the defence would be treated as illusory.

A significant aspect of the case was that the defendants had forfeited their right to file a written statement. The Court held that in the absence of pleadings, the defendants could not set up any defence or lead evidence beyond the scope of the plaint. It was observed that parties cannot travel beyond their pleadings and that evidence cannot be led in the absence of a foundational pleading.

The Court further held that the right of cross-examination cannot be used to set up a defence, and that without a written statement, the defendants were confined to testing the plaintiff’s case within the boundaries of the plaint.

Examining the material on record, the Court found that the ledger statements and balance confirmation, which were signed by both parties, constituted a clear acknowledgement of liability. It noted the absence of any contemporaneous objection or challenge to these documents.

The Court rejected the defence raised by the defendants regarding alleged defects in goods and fabrication of documents, observing that such contentions were unsupported by contemporaneous evidence and could not be entertained in the absence of pleadings.

It held that the alleged defence was “moonshine and illusory” and that the defendants had failed to establish any substantial or bona fide defence to resist the claim.

The Court also noted that the principle underlying Order XIII-A CPC is akin to the summary procedure under Order XXXVII CPC, since both provisions seek to prevent unnecessary trials where no genuine defence exists.

Conclusion

The Calcutta High Court held that the defendants failed to disclose any credible, substantial, or bona fide defence and that the case satisfied the requirements for the grant of summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC.

Accordingly, the Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff for recovery of the principal amount along with interest, holding that no trial was warranted in the absence of a real prospect of defence.

The application for summary judgment was allowed, and the suit was decreed.

Cause Title: DE Converter India Private Limited v. LA Chemico Pvt Ltd & Ors.

Appearances

Plaintiff: Advocates Shuvasish Sengupta; Debraj Sahu; Antara Biswas; Tanushree Saha

Defendants: Advocates Sorosij Dasgupta; Sitikantha Mitra; Keshav Kumar Daruka; S. Chandrani Panigrahi

Click here to read/download Judgment