The High Court · 2025

Judgment

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CCCA No.lO of2O2O JUDGMENT: This City Civil Court Appeal has been filed rnder Section 96 of the CPC by the appellant/defendant'aggr-ieved by the Judgment and decree dated i7.12.2018 passed iri OS No.18 of 2016 by the XII Additional Chief Judge Citl' Civil Court,

Secunderabad (for short "learned trial Court."), wherein the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for Rs. 17,00,000/- with cost against the defendant N r.1 along with interest @ 12 %o per annum on outstanding alnoun ..

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the learned trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that there is agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No.l, that defendant No'l will transport the 315 MVA transformer main boly from TELK Angamally to Nagada and Katni Sub-stations of MPPTCL, Madhya Pradesh. Defendant No.2 is a banker whr issued bank guaranteed on behalf of plaintiff to defendant Nc.l, as per the agreement, vide Bank Guarantee No.BG No.02 1Gl O2|22O3OO3, daled 23.07.2OL2 for a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs. As per e-mail dated I 2

09.O8.2OI4, the plaintiff was asked to placed one heavy 14 Axes Hydraulic Trailer along with all document, in reply plaintiff seeks time as the load requirement come to 180 metric tones which fal1s under HT 6 category 2 and that on account of guidelines dated 20.05.2014 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport High Ways (hereinafter referred as 'MORTH') a sum of Rs.2,OOO/- is to paid for every 50 KMs and that the Maximum time for issuing of permission for HT 4 to HT 6 is 9O days ald it would take around 3O to 45 days time by paying requisite fee. The defendant No.1 by communication dated 14.08.2014 informed that 28.O8.2OI4 was not acceptable to place Axels and as per their terms, trailer has to be placed within 7 days of their confirmation mail arrd that the delivery should be made within 45 days from the date of lading and insisting the plaintiff to place. the trailer on 2O.O8.2O14 itself and further stated that defendant No.l is no way concerned with the guidelines of MORTH. On 14. LO.2OI4, the plaintiff sent email to defendant No.1 stating that the charges for MORTH is Rs.82,O00 l- and the plaintiff will get permission within 30 days and thereafter the plaintiff can place Axels and the transit time will be 45 days. Subsequently, defendant No.1 enchased bank guarantee without giving reasonable time to the plaintiff. 3

4. On 23.1O.2024, the plaintiff informed the l"t defendant by email that 14 Axels and 520 Volvo was on the wa1 to Angamalli and it would reached on 25.10.2074. On 26 12.2014, the defendant No. 1 communicated that the plaintiff lras to submit bank guaran tee @ lO%o of contract value as securily deposit and until then they cannot load transformer on the lrxels. Prior to that, on 24.12.2014, the plaintiff informed to the defendant No.1 that the plaintiff was willing to provide bank gr rarantee after deducting halting charges, i.e., 20,OOO/- per day ft,r detention of Axels from 25.70.2014 to 24.12.2014 to a tune of amount of Rs.12 Lakhs. Since, the defendant No.1is liable fo'to pay Rs.12 Lakhs, hence there was no necessity to insist to furnish bank guarantee for 10olo of the value of the contract. ''he defendant No.l failed to load the transformer without pal ing detention charges and the defendant No.1 is liable to pay brrrk guarantee amount of Rs.2 Lakhs. The defendant No.l violated the terms arrd conditions of the acceptarce dated 10.01.2014.

5. Before the trial Court, defendant No.l appeared and engaged an advocate. Later, the defendant No.l has failed to file written statement ard on 30.08.2016, the defe ndant No.1 was set ex parte and thereafter no steps was taken to file an I 4 application to set aside the ex parte order. Defendant No.2 filed written statement and stated that no relief is claimed against defendalt No.2 and the defendant No.2 is a formal party to the suit and defendarrt No.2 is not aware about disputes between the plaintiff and the defendalt No. 1. : ,

6. Basing on the above sajd pleadings, the following ISSlleS have been framed by the Trial Court:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitted for sum of Rs. 17,00,00O/ _ tuith interest @ 24o/o per annum paAabti bg tlrc d.ifendant No.I toutard_s tlne uaLue of loss inat_rred _ba the pliintiff inllud_ing ualue of bank gaara?tee beaing No.O2 tGi O2 |2203OOO3, aqLa ZI.OZ.ZOIZ issued bg the 2"a dekndant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitLed for ctaim? 3. To uthat relieJ? 7 . After hearing both sides and going into the merits of the case and evaluating the entire evidences on record, the triat court partly a-llowed and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for Rs.17,O0,OO0 l- with cost against the defendant No. 1 along with interest @ 12 % per annum on outstanding amount.

8. Heard Ms. G.Sudha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.Shyam Agraryal, learned counsel for the respondent. 5 g. Being aggrieved by the said judgment ani decree, the present appeal is filed on the ground that there is suppression of material facts by the plaintiff and aly dispute a'ising between the plaintiff and defendant No' 1 in terms of clause 4'23 which clearly states that "Ang legal claim aising but rf this contract shall be subiect to the juisdiction of High Ccurt of Kerala, Ernakulam" and the Trial Court is not having jurisCiction to pass such order. The plaintiff ought to have filed suit, if any, against the defendalt No.1 under the jurisdiction of the lourts of High Court of Kerala, Ernakula. As such, ignoring t re jurisdiction clause and f,rling the suit in Secunderabad, State c f Telangala by the plaintiff is bad in law and consequently t re decree and judgment passed by the trial Court has to be treiLted as non est in nature

10. Learned counsel for the Defendant No.l r:ontended that appellant has breach the terms of contract cf work order No.MK/6412l l3/QTN/BR I 3294, DATED 30.1.2)13 and failed to arrange / transport two transformers to Nagda and Katni site an also failed to arrange the Trailer within min mum 14 Axles necessary to transport 315 MVA Transforme r from TELK, 6 Angamaly to various site of MPPICL 4OO KV Substation as per clause 2 of the said contract

11. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 further contended that plaintiff having agreed to deliver transformer to M/s.MPPTCL, 400 KV Substation site, Katni Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh State as per their mail dated lB.Og.2Ol4, however delayed on the alleged ground of MORTH and took time unilaterally. Though several emails dated tg.Og.2Ol4,

08.10.2014, 70.lO.2Ol4, t6.1O.2Ot4, 20.tO.2O14 and finally on

24.12.2014 were given to the plaintiff, the sarne were ignored which is evident that there is specific recital that the plaintiff failed to placed the Trailer on 2O.LO.2OI4 and extended time to time. And have breach the terms of the contract by the plaintiff.

12. Learned counsel for the defendant No.l further contended that the Trial Court failed to noticed that the delay was caused by the plaintiff and under the guise of obtaining permission under MORTH Rules the ptaintiff has delayed the placing of trailer with axles ald the entire correspondence arrd communication were not disclosed by the plaintiff in fair manner and only certain picked and chose were placed before the Trial ,i I i I i I I I 7 Court for their convenience to obtain an ex-par -e decree and judgment which is not fair and unsustainable'

13. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff/respondenl submits that after considering the evidence available on record, lhe Trial Court has rightly entitled lor a sum ol Rs. 17,00,000i with interest towards the va-lue of loss incurred by the plaintiff i-rcluding value of bank guarantee bearing, dated 21.O7 '2012. 14 . Learned counsel for the respondent/ pL Lintiff further contended that plaintiff has communicated to the <iefendant No' 1 under email dated 13.08.2014 that they will place Axels on

28.0a.2014 subject to permission by MORTH and -he permission fee will be reimbursed by the defendalt No.1. Tht: l"t defendant asked the plaintiff under email to place Axels ear ier at ieast on

20.08.2014 and that the plaintiff confirmed the same by email dated 13.08.2014 and on 14-O8.2014, the plaintiff communicated to the defendant No.1 that the ord':r was issue to them on 10.01.2014.

15. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further conr ended that the defendant No. 1 a.ked the plaintiff to delay of more than six months meanwhile MORTH guidelines have come into force from 2O.O5.2O14 which changes the cost involved and they had .i l I I 1 I I l I i t I : I I I l I I I I I I I ! I I B communicated to placed, Axel on 28.O8.2O14 subject to condition that the tralsit period of 45 days and prayed this Court to dismiss the instant appeal.

16. Basing on the grounds and averments rnade in the affidavit and considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent, the point which arose for consideration in this appeal are that I Wlrcther th.e appeLlant has made out any ground to set-aside the judgment and decree passed bA the XII Additional Chtef Judge, Citg Ciuil Court, Secunderabad?

2. Whether th.e Appellant/ Defendant is entitled to relief as claim for?

3. If so u.that relieJ? Point Nos.1 & 2 17 . On the material on record, it is evidently clear that the judgment passed by the learned XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court is a ex-parte judgment, except the oral averments made by the appellant, there are no grounds of the appellant to put up their case in their defense. Admittedly, defendant No.1 did not choose to contest nor have taken any steps to set-aside the ex parte order and did not participate in the suit. On detail 9 perusal of trial Court order dated, l7.l2.2ola, the defendalt No.1 has engaged an advocate. On 30.O8.2016, as there was no representation and as the defendant No.l failed to file written statement, the .defendant No. 1 was set ex pa te- Thereafter, defendant No. 1 did not turn up to take stt ps to file an application to set aside the ex-parte order.

18. The trial Court without having aly option br,t has to accept the contention made by learned counsel for th e plaintiff arrd passed the judgment in favor of plaintiff. In this regard, there should be strong and cogent reasons for not pz rticipating and contesting the matter and rebutting the allegatio:rs made by the respondents/ plaintiff, in absence of any pleading s, this Court is also cannot grant relief to the appellalt/defendan:.

19. In the present suit also there is no docum:ntary evidence or averments in the appeal except stating the Tri rl Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter. Prtma Fqci<: on perusal of entire record, there is nothing to reject the claim of the plaintiff, so also there is no case made out by the learned counsel for the Appellant/Defendant 1n respect of lack of competency and jurisdiction of the learned XII additional Ch ef Judge. The defendant No.1 did not choose to cross examine the plaintiff to -I .tl j t I I l I ! i 10 prove their claim in the Trial Court, in the absence of any rebuttal pleadings or any rebuttal evidence put forth by the respondent/ plaintiff before the tria-l Court and in the absence of any such p1ea, relief sought by the appellant/ defendant cannot be granted before this Court.

20. Prima facie, on considering the entire material on record and the ora-l and documentar5r evidence placed by plaintiff/respondent, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff/respondent has substantiated his claim by placing all the evidence and in the absence of aly rebuttal evidence placed by the Defendant No. l/petitioner to disprove the claim of the plaintiff. Even, there is no pleadings been pointed out by the Defendant No. l/petitioner before this Court to disprove the claim of the plaintiff/ respondent.

21. Hence, this Court do not see any grounds to interfere with the said findings of the judgment passed by the Trial Court. As such, the appeal filed by the appellants falls to the ground. Hence, point Nos.1 & 2 are answered accordingly. Point No.3

22. In the result, the City Civil Court Appeat deserved to be and accordingly dismissed. The Judgment and decree dated

17.12.2018 passed in OS No.18 of 2016 by the XII Additional : .:' 11 Chief Judge City Civil Court, Secunderabad is confirmed by this Court

23. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pendin11, shall stand closed. To //TRUE COPY// SD/: T.TTRUMALA DEVI i.?.t*-=:'.1*:_ _* :'ECTION OFFICER \ 1 t. The Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad 2. One CC to M/s. G. SUDHA, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. SHYATM S AGRAWAL', Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies (with records) kul/gh MP (t- ':!l'":'.':. HIGH COURT DATED:0410412025 JUDGMENT + DECREE CGCA.No.10 ot 2020 /- ,66 STAi€ 1 ( q ]J i) v c) 16 Ju\, ztrm DISMISSING THE CITY CIVIL COURT AF'PEAL G-tqdt tr@ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT:: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 10 OF 2020 Between: Transformers and Electricals Kerala Limited, Angamally South P.O., Ernakulam District, Kerala State - 683 573. Represented by its Chairman and [\ilanaging Director AND ..APPELLANT/DEFENDANT

1. JSTC Logistics Private Limited, No.202, 2"d Floor, Chenoy Trade Centre, Park Lane, Secunderabad - 500 003. Represented by its Director Anil Ratan Goyal

2. HDFC Bank Limited, 1-10-60/3, 3rd Ftoor, ,;rT:T;:::1ffi:;:t 500 026, Represented by its Senior Manager ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section 96 of CPC aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 17-12-2018 in O.S.No. 18of 2016 on the file of the Courtof the Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lvlemorandum of grounds filed in the Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the.Lower Court and the record in the case and upon hearing the arguments of IV/s. G. Sudha, Advocate for the appellant and Sri Shyam S Agrawal, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for Respondent No.2. This Court doth order and decree as follows: '1 . That the appeal be and hereby is dismissed. I " -:1:'><-'

2. That the Judgment and decree dated 17 -12_201g passed in O.S.No. 18 of 2016 by the Xll Additionat Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad be and hereby is confirmed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. T.TIRUMALA DEVI REGISTRAR DE ,{, ON OFFICER To l . The Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunder;rbad 2. Two C.D.Copies w HIGH COURT DATED:0410412025 DEGREE CCCA.No.10 of 2020 DISMISSING THE CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL ,uRqd ^ X*