M/S Shivare Roadlines Pvt Ltd vs Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board

Court
Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2026 INSC 556

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.5432 OF 2026

M/S SHIVHARE ROADLINES PVT. LTD. PETITIONERS
AND ANR.

VERSUS

MADHYA PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the decree passed by the
Trial Court for an amount of ₹ 23,02,932.28/- being the value of
the vehicles stated to be in their possession, an amount of
₹ 23,56,752/- towards outstanding rent for use of the said vehicles
with interest @ 6% per annum, an amount of ₹ 90,000/- per month
towards compensation till the return of the vehicles with interest
@ 6% per annum payable to the respondent. The counter-claim
preferred by the petitioners was dismissed by the Trial Court. This
1
decree has been upheld by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh .
Hence, the present proceedings.

2. The parties would be referred to as per their status before the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NIDHI AHUJA
Date: 2026.05.26
17:51:38 IST
Reason:

1
For short, ‘the High Court’

Special Leave Petition (C) No.5432 of 2026 Page 1

Trial Court. According to the plaintiff- Madhya Pradesh Electricity
Board, on 22.04.1992, a contract was entered into by it with the
defendants- M/s Shivhare Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. and another,
whereby two tractor trailers owned by the plaintiff were given on
hire to the defendants. One tractor trailer had the capacity of 100
metric tonnes while the other tractor trailer had the capacity of 50
metric tonnes. The hire charges payable per month were ₹ 55,000/-
and ₹ 35,000/- respectively. Various other terms and conditions
were mentioned in the said contract. Pursuant to the aforesaid
contract, the defendants took the said tractor trailers on hire and
started operating the same. Though initially the hire charges were
regularly paid, the defendants sought waiver of such charges from
June 1994 on the ground that services were being provided to the
plaintiff. Since the defendants failed to pay the outstanding hire
charges, the plaintiff on 01.08.1998 instituted the above suit for
recovery.
3. The defendants filed their written statement denying the
claim of the plaintiff. In addition, they also raised a counter-claim
for an amount of ₹ 73,19,372/- being the amount liable to be paid
to the defendants towards transportation bills. By filing a written
statement to the said counter-claim, the plaintiff opposed the same.

Special Leave Petition (C) No.5432 of 2026 Page 2

4. The parties led evidence before the Trial Court. In the
deposition of plaintiff’s witness, it was revealed that while the
tractors were manufactured in America in 1982, the trailers were
manufactured in India in 1979. They were registered in the year
1982 and their value at purchase was about ₹ 50,00,000/-. It was
further brought on record that the validity of the tractor trailer
having capacity of 100 metric tonnes was 25.03.1992 while that of
the other tractor trailer having capacity of 50 metric tonnes was
25.03.1991. No steps were taken to obtain fitness certificates after
the said period as the said vehicles were intended to be sold on ‘as
is where is basis’. The contract agreement between the parties
dated 22.04.1992 was for a duration of three years.
5. The Trial Court by its judgment dated 30.07.2011 decreed
the suit of the plaintiff and directed the defendants to pay the
depreciated value of said vehicles being ₹ 23,02,932.28/-. A further
direction to pay outstanding rent of the said vehicles of
₹ 23,56,752/- with interest @ 6% per annum and compensation @
₹ 90,000/- per month with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of
the suit till return of the vehicles was directed. The counter-claim
was held to be barred by limitation and was accordingly rejected.
6. The defendants filed an appeal under Section 96 of the Code

Special Leave Petition (C) No.5432 of 2026 Page 3

of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the High Court. On re-
consideration of the entire matter, learned Single Judge confirmed
the decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the first appeal.
7.
It may be mentioned that while issuing notice in the present
proceedings, the parties were directed to have an attempt at
mediation so as to resolve the dispute. The defendants were also
directed to deposit an amount of ₹ 20,00,000/- as a condition for
staying the execution of the decree. The process of mediation was,
however, not successful.
We have accordingly heard Mr. Gagan Gupta, learned Senior
Advocate for the defendants and Mr. Ravishankar Jaiswal, learned
Senior Advocate for the plaintiff. Besides making their respective
submissions in brief, the learned Senior Advocates submitted to
the orders of the Court since it was suggested to them that
considering the nature of dispute, the same needed to be put to
quietus.
8. Having given due consideration to the entire matter, it can be
seen that the vehicles that were given on hire by the plaintiff to the
defendants were of the make of 1982 and 1979, respectively. The
fitness certificates issued to them expired on 25.03.1992 and
23.05.1991. No further steps were taken to renew the same. The

Special Leave Petition (C) No.5432 of 2026 Page 4

depreciated value of the said vehicles in 2011 was found by the
Trial Court to be approximately ₹ 23,00,000/-. During pendency of
the appeal before the High Court, the defendants had deposited an
₹ ₹
amount of 12,00,000/- there. A further amount of 20,00,000/-
was deposited with the Registry of this Court on 27.02.2026 as a
condition for stay and further amount of ₹ 30,00,000/- that was
directed to be deposited by the order dated 30.04.2026 has been,
accordingly, deposited. Taking an overall view of the matter and
without entering into detailed appreciation of the rival submissions,
in our view, the ends of justice would be met if the plaintiff is
₹
awarded a sum of 62,00,000/- towards its claim as made so as to
put an end to the entire litigation that has continued for almost
three decades. As stated above, an amount of ₹ 12,00,000/- has
already been deposited by the defendants before the High Court.
Further amount of ₹ 50,00,000/- stands deposited with the
Registry of this Court. These amounts with accrued interest can
be made over to the plaintiff so as to end dispute between the
parties that arose pursuant to the contract dated 22.04.1992.
9. Accordingly, by holding the plaintiff entitled to an amount of
₹ 62,00,000/- towards full satisfaction of the decree passed by the
Trial Court in Civil Suit No.6-B/2006 decreed on 30.07.2011, the

Special Leave Petition (C) No.5432 of 2026 Page 5

Special Leave Petition stands disposed of. The respondent would
be entitled to withdraw the amount of ₹ 12,00,000/- with accrued
interest lying in deposit with High Court in First Appeal No.893 of
₹
2011. Further, the amount of 50,00,000/- with accrued interest
shall be released by the Registry in favour of the respondent.
Ordered accordingly.


..………………………..J.
[ J.K. MAHESHWARI ]



.…..………………………..J.
[ ATUL S. CHANDURKAR ]


NEW DELHI,
MAY 26, 2026.

Special Leave Petition (C) No.5432 of 2026 Page 6