Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
BRITISH INDIAN CORPORATION LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
M/S. RASHTRACO FREIGHT CARRIERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/05/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
FAIZAN UDDIN (J)
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (4) 748 JT 1996 (5) 662
1996 SCALE (5)11
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
The appellant had entrusted to the respondent 147 bales
of raw wools worth Rs.51.48 lakhs as carriers for
transportation to Cawnpore Woolen Mills. In spite of taking
delivery thereof, the respondent had detained the goods in
his custody, laid the suit O.S. No.612/94 in the Civil Court
at Kanpur for a permanent injunction restraining the
appellant from taking forcibile possession of the goods with
the allegation that a sum of Rs.13,48,817.13 was due from
the appellant towards arrears of transportation charges. The
interim injunction sought for was initially granted but
later on vacated. Ultimately, in appeal, the High Court
directed the appellant to give bank guarantee to the tune of
the amount purported to be due as pleaded for in the suit.
We are informed that the bank guarantee has accordingly been
given. The appellant entrusted taking of delivery of the
possession of the goods to the carriers-respondent who laid
the suit on July 1, 1994 and interim mandatory injunction
was sought for and was granted.
These proceedings arise out of an application made
under Section 10 CPC on September 19, 1994 seeking stay of
the trial in O.S. No.793/94. The trial court dismissed it,
but the High Court in revision has directed stay of the
suit. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
Section 10 of CPC envisages that no court shall proceed
with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is
also directly and substantially in issue in a previously
instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties
under whom they of any of them claim litigating under the
same title where such suit is pending in the same or any
other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief
claimed. It is seen that the claim of the respondent in the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
suit No.612/94 is for the recovery of the alleged dues said
to be payable by the appellant-Corporation while the suit of
the appellant is for recovery of the goods lawfully
entrusted to and unlawfully detained by the respondent. The
causes of action are entirely different. There is no common
issue directly or substantially in issue in both the suits.
The High Court, therefore, committed gross error of law in
staying the later suit.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned order
of the High Court dated 25th May, 1995 is set aside. No
costs.