Op EdsOP. ED.

Introduction

Summary judgment, as the combination of two words suggests, is an outcome of a case decided summarily, based on the documentary evidence produced before the Court by the parties, without going for recording of the oral evidence. The cause of action for filing the application under Order XIII-A[1] of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “the Code”), as inserted by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (in short “the Act”), arises only when the summons are served upon the defendant. The Order is applicable to both the parties to the litigation. It is not limited to the claim of the plaintiff, rather it is extended to the counterclaim filed by the defendant as well. Application by a party for the summary judgment is filed not merely for deciding a claim or counterclaim but also to seek answer of any particular question on which the claim depends.

The High Court of Delhi, in Oxbridge Associates Ltd.  v. Atul Kumra[2], has held that “an application is not essential to seek the summary judgment and the Court, on its own or on the asking of either party, is entitled to see/adjudicate, whether a case for summary judgment is made out.” The Court further observed that the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, in Chapter X-A thereof, also provides for summary judgment and does not provide for any application to be moved. The Law Commission has also discussed this concept and made certain recommendations in its 253rd Report[3].

253rd Law Commission Report

In pursuant to the Law Commission’s 188th Report[4] wherein necessity for commercial courts was expressed, the Law Commission further, in its 253rd Report, submitted that a new procedure for “summary judgment” be introduced to permit the courts to decide a claim pertaining to any commercial dispute without recording oral evidence, as long as the application for summary judgment has been filed before the framing of issues. Courts are also to be empowered to make “conditional orders” wherever necessary.

 Intention and Objective 

The Supreme Court, in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises  v. K.S. Infraspace Llp,[5] has held:

“… Keeping in view the object and purpose of the establishment of the commercial courts and fast tracking procedure provided under the Act, the statutory provisions of the Act and the words incorporated thereon are to be meaningfully interpreted for quick disposal of commercial litigations so as to benefit the litigants especially those who are engaged in trade and commerce which in turn will further economic growth of the country.”

The Division Bench of the Madras High Court, in Syrma Technology Pvt. Ltd. v. Powerwave Technologies Sweden AD [6], has held

11. … the Commercial Courts Act has been introduced with the intention to give qualitative and quantitative decisions. Interestingly, the enactment fixes responsibility on all the stakeholders, including judiciary, in achieving the avowed object.”

The Delhi High Court further held, in Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.  v. MJ Bizcraft LLP [7],

“ …from the provisions laid out in Order XIII-A, it is evident that the proceedings before Court are adversarial in nature and not inquisitorial. It follows, therefore, that summary judgment under Order XIII-A cannot be rendered in the absence of an adversary and merely upon the inquisition by the Court.”

In order to have a better understanding of the concept, it will be pertinent to have a look at some of the provisions concerned under the Code and their interpretation.

Statutory Provisions for Summary Judgment

A. Rule 1 of Order XIII-A of the Code sets out the procedure by which the Courts may decide a claim pertaining to any commercial dispute without recording oral evidence. Sub-rule (2) for the purpose of this order includes the word “claim”;

i) part of a claim;

ii) any particular question on which the claim (whether in whole or in part) depends; or

iii) a counterclaim.

Sub-rule (3) clarifies that no application for summary judgment can be filed in a summary suit in respect of any commercial dispute originally filed under Order XXXVII of the Code.

B. Rule 2 of Order XIII-A of the Code provides that an application for the summary judgment can be filed any time after the service of the summons has been served upon the defendant. Proviso to the clause reads that no application for summary judgment may be made after issues are framed by the Court. The High Court of Madras has held, in Syrma[8]:

“Thus, if one reads the provision as a whole, what emerges is that an application may not be filed after framing of the issues. The first part speaks of the entitlement to file an application and the second is the outer limit. Although, the legislation uses the words ‘may’, one has to see the preceding words, ‘no application for summary judgment‘.. The power being discretionary, it has to be exercised before the framing of issues. The reason being that once issues are framed and taken note of to be answered, regular trial is the way out.”

(emphasis added)

One may argue that the defendant may file an application for summary judgment under the above said order after receiving the summons under sub-clause (b) of clause 2 of sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order XIII-A of the Code. However, filing the same will not entitle him to claim an extension of the time period, statutorily fixed for filing the Written Statement.

The Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi has held in Bright Enterprises[9] :

“…the provisions related to summary judgment, which enables courts to decide claims pertaining to commercial disputes without recording oral evidence, are exceptional in nature and out of the ordinary course which a normal suit has to follow. In such an eventuality, it is essential that the stipulations are followed scrupulously, otherwise, it may result in gross injustice.”

C. Rule 3 of Order XIII-A of the Code laid down the following grounds for the summary judgment against a party on a claim when it considers that:

(a) the plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim; and

(b) there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence.

To narrow down the grounds for summary judgment, the court, while deciding the said application, is required to disclose the grounds that the plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim, or, the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and also, that there is no other justifiable reason for keeping the claim alive and allowing the recording of oral evidence.

The High Court of Delhi has held in Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. v. Kunwer Sachdev[10]:

91. Rule 3 of Order XIII-A CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, empowers the court to grant a summary judgment against the defendant where the court considers that the defendant has no real prospects of successfully defending the claim and there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence. The expression “real” directs the court to examine whether there is a “realistic” as opposed to “fanciful” prospects of success. This Court is of the view that the expression “no genuine issue requiring a trial” in the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure and “no other compelling reason…..for trial” in the Commercial Courts Act can be read mutatis mutandis. Consequently, Order XIII-A CPC would be attracted if the Court, while hearing such an application, can make the necessary finding of fact, apply the law to the facts and the same is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means of achieving a fair and just result.

92. Accordingly, unlike ordinary suits, courts need not hold trial in commercial suits, even if there are disputed questions of fact as held by the Canadian Supreme Court in Robert Hryniak[11] , in the event, the Court comes to the conclusion that the defendant lacks a real prospect of successfully defending the claim.”

The High Court of Delhi, in an another case of Ambawatta Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. v. Imperia Structure Ltd.[12], has held:

“what has to be seen is, whether the defence pleaded, has any chance of succeeding in law and if the answer is in the negative, a decree on admissions or under Order XV of CPC or a summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC as applicable to commercial disputes read with Chapter X-A of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, has to follow.”

D. Rule 4 of Order XIII-A of the Code laid down the following procedure for filing such application:

(1) An application for summary judgment to a court shall include the following matters:

(a) the application must contain a statement that it is an application for summary judgment made under this Order;

(b) the application must precisely disclose all material facts and identify the point of law, if any;

(c) in the event the applicant seeks to rely upon any documentary evidence, the applicant must,–

(i) include such documentary evidence in its application, and

(ii) identify the relevant content of such documentary evidence on which the applicant relies;

(d) the application must state the reason why there are no real prospects of succeeding on the claim or defending the claim, as the case may be;

(e) the application must state what relief the applicant is seeking and briefly state the grounds for seeking such relief.

The procedure is mandatory for both the parties to follow. The application must contain a statement that the said application is for summary judgment and also the reason as to why the party thinks that there are no real prospects of succeeding on the claim or defending the claim. It is further necessary for the parties to state the relief being sought from the court and the grounds for seeking such relief. It makes clearer that the applicant has to give the reasons for the relief being sought from the court.

(2) Where a hearing for summary judgment is fixed, the respondent must be given at least thirty days’ notice of:

(a) the date fixed for the hearing; and

(b) the claim that is proposed to be decided by the court at such hearing.

(3) The respondent may, within thirty days of the receipt of notice of application of summary judgment or notice of hearing (whichever is earlier), file a reply addressing the matters set forth in clauses (a) to (f) mentioned hereunder in addition to any other matters that the respondent may deem relevant:

(a) the reply must precisely–

(i) disclose all material facts;

(ii) identify the point of law, if any; and

(iii) state the reasons why the relief sought by the applicant should not be granted;

(b) in the event the respondent seeks to rely upon any documentary evidence in its reply, the respondent must–

(i) include such documentary evidence in its reply; and

(ii) identify the relevant content of such documentary evidence on which the respondent relies;

(c) the reply must state the reason why there are real prospects of succeeding on the claim or defending the claim, as the case may be;

(d) the reply must concisely state the issues that should be framed for trial;

(e) the reply must identify what further evidence shall be brought on record at trial that could not be brought on record at the stage of summary judgment; and

(f) the reply must state why, in light of the evidence or material on record if any, the Court should not proceed to summary judgment.

Once the application for summary judgment is filed, the respondent has to be given 30 days’ notice intimating him the next date fixed for the hearing and also the claim to be adjudicated upon. This Order casts a duty upon the respondent that the reply, among other things, must concisely state the issues that should be framed for trial and also identify what further evidence shall be brought on record at trial that could not be brought on record at the stage of summary judgment. Besides, the reply must also state as to why, in light of the evidence brought before it, the court should not proceed to issue a summary judgment. Onus has been shifted on the respondent, if he opposes the application for summary judgment, to file the proposed issues before the court. This will enable the court to verify the authenticity of the defence adopted by the respondent.

E. Rule 5 of Order XIII-A of the Code provides for evidences to be placed before the court for hearing of summary judgment and further clarifies that if a respondent in an application for summary judgment wishes to rely on an additional documentary evidence, he must file such documentary evidence and serve copies of such evidence to other parties to the application at least 15 days prior to the date of hearing. It has further provided that if the applicant to the summary judgment wishes to rely on documentary evidence upon respondent’s evidence then he must file it in his reply and serve on the respondent at least 5 days from the date of hearing. The parties are restrained from filing such documentary evidence again if the same has already been filed or served to the parties concerned.

F. Rule 6 of Order XIII-A of the Code provides the list of orders to be made by the court i.e.

(a) judgment on the claim;

(b) conditional order in accordance with Rule 7 of this Order;

(c) dismissing the application;

(d) dismissing part of the claim and a judgment on part of the claim that is not dismissed;

(e) striking out the pleadings (whether in whole or in part); or

(f) further directions to proceed for case management under Order XV-A.

It is clarified that the Court may pass any other order in addition to the above orders and the Court is also obliged to record the reasons for making the orders. The High Court of Madras has held in Syrma Technology[13]:

“ Thus, to conclude, we are of the view that when an application is filed under Order XIII-A, a court is expected to keep in mind the provisions contained in Order XIII-A Rules 6 and 7 before considering a summary judgment under Order XIII-A Rule 3. We are conscious that Order XIII-A Rule 6 also speaks of a judgment on the claim both part or full. Order XIII-A Rule 7, read with other modes mentioned under Order XIII-A Rule 6, act as contraceptive to grant of summary judgment under Order XIII-A Rule 3. The question as to whether the case is complicated or not is not the concern of the court especially in deciding an application filed invoking Order XIII-A CPC. Obviously, the respondent in the application has to produce his best evidence, which would be his “lead trump” as he would stand the chance of losing his case.”

G. Rule 7 of Order XIII-A of the Code talks about the conditional order. By conditional order, it means that when the court is of the opinion that a claim or defence may succeed but it is improbable that the court shall do so, the court may pass a conditional order as set forth in clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 6. At the time of making the conditional order, the court may:

(a) make it subject to all or any of the following conditions:

(i) require a party to deposit a sum of money in the court;

(ii) require a party to take a specified step in relation to the claim or defence; (iii) require a party to give such security or provide such surety for restitution of costs as the court deems fit and proper;

(iv) impose such other conditions, including providing security for restitution of losses that any party is likely to suffer during the pendency of the suit, as the court may deem fit in its discretion; and

(b) specify the consequences of the failure to comply with the conditional order, including passing a judgment against the party that have not complied with the conditional order.

The purpose of the conditional order is to safeguard the interests of the parties. The Madras High Court observed in Syrma[14]:

“This rule provides sufficient power to the court to pass a conditional order. This power has to be exercised when “it appears” to the court that it is possible that a claim or defence may succeed but it is improbable that it shall do so. If we read order XIII-A Rules 6 and 7 together, a clear picture would emerge. If it appears to the court that a claim or defence may succeed and it is also probable, then the application filed seeking a summary judgment will have to be dismissed. If it appears to the court that it is possible but improbable as stated in Rule 7 of Order XIII-A of the Code, then it may consider passing a conditional order. If the court considers that a plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim there is no other compelling reason as to why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence, it may give a summary judgment. Alternatively, the court can also consider striking out the pleadings either in whole or in part. This discretion is given to the court before deciding to give a summary judgment. Therefore, the court has to keep in mind and decide as to whether it is a fit case for striking out the pleadings dismissing an application and proceed further or a conditional order could be passed. After exhausting these stages, the question of granting a summary judgment would arise.”

It is relevant to point out that under Rule 8, the court is empowered to impose cost upon the defaulting parties as per the dynamic provisions incorporated under Sections 35 and 35- A of the Act[15].

Summary Judgment Vis-à-vis Judgment on Admission

The  High Court of Delhi, in Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. v. Kunwer Sachdev [16], has held that the “ legislative intent behind introducing summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code is to provide a remedy independent, separate and distinct from judgment on admissions and summary judgment under Order XXXVII of the Code.”

Conclusion

The procedure given under Order XIII-A of the Code has the sole purpose to reduce the time period in deciding the commercial dispute of a specified value. It is not alien to say that the amendment in the Code is basically to strengthen the confidence of the merchant class in the fairness, transparency and effective justice delivery system. Loopholes exploited by some of the parties have also been taken care of in the present provision. Moreover, it can be noted that the special courts, that too, of District Judges, which are superior courts at the district level, have been designated to adjudicate the matters. The fact that trial is a default process in every civil suit has been done away with the insertion of Order XIII-A of the Code. Therefore, the intention of the legislature is to enable the courts to decide the commercial disputes of a specified value in a time bound and efficient manner.


*Author is a founding partner at Actus Legal Advocates and Associates. He may be contacted at rajnish@actuslegal.in

[1] Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order XIII-A 

[2] 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10641

[3] Law Commission of India, 253rd Report on Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts and Commercial Courts Bill, 2015 (January 2015) 

[4] Law Commission of India, 188th Report on Proposals for Constitution of Hi-Tech Fast — Track Commercial Divisions in High Courts  (December, 2003)

[5] 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1311

[6] Syrma Technology Pvt. Ltd. v. Powerwave Technologies Sweden AD,2020 SCC OnLine Mad 5737 

[7] 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4421

[8]  Syrma Technology Private Limited vs. Powerwave Technologies Sweden AD, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 5737   

[9] 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4421

[10] 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10764

[11] Robert Hryniak v. Fred Mauldin, 2014 SCC OnLine Can SC 53

[12] 2019 SCC Online Del 8657 

[13]  Syrma Technology Pvt. Ltd. v. Powerwave Technologies Sweden AD, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 5737   

[14] Ibid

[15] The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [Act No. 04 of 2016]

[16] 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10764

Op EdsOP. ED.

1. Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015, as amended (in short ‘CCA’) has been enacted with the object to have a streamlined procedure which is to be adopted for the conduct of cases in the Commercial Courts and in the Commercial Divisions by amending the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, so as to improve the efficiency and reduce delays in disposal of commercial cases. The proposed case management system and provisions for summary judgment will enable disposal of commercial disputes in a time bound manner.

2. As per Section 16 of CCA, certain provisions of CPC stand amended in the manner specified in the Schedule to the Act, with respect to their application to any suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a specified value, and the same shall be followed by the Commercial Division and Commercial Court in the trial of a suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a specified value.

Order XIII–A has been incorporated in CPC only for purposes of adjudication of commercial suit under the said Act in terms of the Schedule referable to Section 16. The said Order reads as under:

1. Scope of and classes of suits to which this Order applies.– (1) This Order sets out the procedure by which Courts may decide a claim pertaining to any commercial dispute without recording oral evidence.

(2) For the purposes of this Order, the word “claim” shall include-

(a) part of a claim;

(b) any particular question on which the claim (whether in whole or in part) depends; or

(c) a counterclaim, as the case may be.

(3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, an application for summary judgment under this Order shall not be made in a suit in respect of any commercial dispute that is originally filed as a summary suit under Order XXXVII.

2. Stage for application for summary judgment.- An applicant may apply for summary judgment at any time after summons has been served on the defendant:

Provided that, no application for summary judgment may be made by such applicant after the Court has framed the issues in respect of the suit.

3. Grounds for summary judgment.– The Court may give a summary judgment against a plaintiff or defendant on a claim if it considers that–

  • the plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, as the case may be; and
  • there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence.

4. Procedure.- (1) An application for summary judgment to a Court shall, in addition to any other matters the applicant may deem relevant, include the matters set forth in sub-clauses (a) to (f) mentioned hereunder:

(a) the application must contain a statement that it is an application for summary judgment made under this Order;

(b) the application must precisely disclose all material facts and identify the point of law, if any;

  • in the event the applicant seeks to rely upon any documentary evidence, the applicant must, –

(i) include such documentary evidence in its application, and

(ii) identify the relevant content of such documentary evidence on which the applicant relies;

(d) the application must state the reason why there are no real prospects of succeeding on the claim or defending the claim, as the case may be;

(e) the application must state what relief the applicant is seeking and briefly state the grounds for seeking such relief.

(2) Where a hearing for summary judgment is fixed, the respondent must be given at least thirty days’notice of:

(a) the date fixed for the hearing; and

(b) the claim that is proposed to be decided by the Court at such hearing.

(3) The respondent may, within thirty days of the receipt of notice of application of summary judgment or notice of hearing (whichever is earlier), file a reply addressing the matters set forth in clauses (a) to (f) mentioned hereunder in addition to any other matters that the respondent may deem relevant:

(a) the reply must precisely––

(i) disclose all material facts;

(ii) identify the point of law, if any; and

(iii) state the reasons why the relief sought by the applicant should not be granted;

(b) in the event the respondent seeks to rely upon any documentary evidence in its reply, the respondent must—

(i) include such documentary evidence in its reply; and

(ii) identify the relevant content of such documentary evidence on which the respondent relies;

(c) the reply must state the reason why there are real prospects of succeeding on the claim or defending the claim, as the case may be;

(d) the reply must concisely state the issues that should be framed for trial;

(e) the reply must identify what further evidence shall be brought on record at trial that could not be brought on record at the stage of summary judgment; and

(f) the reply must state why, in light of the evidence or material on record if any, the Court should not proceed to summary judgment.

5.Evidence for hearing of summary judgment.–(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Order, if the respondent in an application for summary judgment wishes to rely on additional documentary evidence during the hearing, the respondent must:

(a) file such documentary evidence; and

(b) serve copies of such documentary evidence on every other party to the application at least fifteen days prior to the date of the hearing.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Order, if the applicant for summary judgment wishes to rely on documentary evidence in reply to the defendant’s documentary evidence, the applicant must:

(a) file such documentary evidence in reply; and

(b) serve a copy of such documentary evidence on the respondent at least five days prior to the date of the hearing.

(3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, sub-rules (1) and (2) shall not require documentary evidence to be:

(a) filed if such documentary evidence has already been filed; or

(b) served on a party on whom it has already been served.

6. Orders that may be made by Court. – (1) On an application made under this Order, the Court may make such orders that it may deem fit in its discretion including the following:

(a) judgment on the claim;

(b)conditional order in accordance with Rule 7 mentioned hereunder;

(c) dismissing the application;

(d) dismissing part of the claim and a judgment on part of the claim that is not dismissed;

(e) striking out the pleadings (whether in whole or in part); or

(f) further directions to proceed for case management under Order XV-A.

(2) Where the Court makes any of the orders as set forth in sub-rule (1)(a) to (f), the Court shall record its reasons for making such order.

7. Conditional order.(1) Where it appears to the Court that it is possible that a claim or defence may succeed but it is improbable that it shall do so, the Court may make a conditional order as set forth in Rule 6(1)(b).

(2) Where the Court makes a conditional order, it may:

(a) make it subject to all or any of the following conditions:

(i) require a party to deposit a sum of money in the Court;

(ii) require a party to take a specified step in relation to the claim or defence, as the case may be;

(iii) require a party, as the case may be, to give such security or provide such surety for restitution of costs as the Court deems fit and proper;

(iv) impose such other conditions, including providing security for restitution of losses that any party is likely to suffer during the pendency of the suit, as the Court may deem fit in its discretion; and

(b) specify the consequences of the failure to comply with the conditional order, including passing a judgment against the party that have not complied with the conditional order.

8. Power to impose costs. – The Court may make an order for payment of costs in an application for summary judgment in accordance with the provisions of Sections 35 and 35-A of the Code.’

7. Insertion of Order XV-A – 7. After Order XV of the Code, the following Order shall be inserted, namely:

                                    *                *                  *

6. Powers of the Court in a Case Management Hearing. – (1) In any Case Management Hearing held under this Order, the Court shall have the power to-

(a) prior to the framing of issues, hear and decide any pending application filed by the parties under Order XIII-A;

*                 *              *”

3. It may be noted here itself that the provisions of Order XIII – A CPC are para materia to Rule 24.2 of the Civil Procedure Rules in England.

4. Emphasising the scope of Order XIII – A CPC, the Delhi High Court in the judgment of Bright Enterprises Private Limited  MJ Bizcraft LLP[1],  held as under:

“21…Rule 3 of Order XIII-A CPC empowers the Court to give a summary judgment against a plaintiff or defendant on a claim if it considers that – (a) the plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, as the case may be; and (b) there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence…”

5. In the judgment of Rockwool International A/S v. Thermocare Rockwool (India) Pvt. Ltd.[2], the Delhi High Court observed the following requisites for passing a summary judgment:

  • There is no real prospect of a party succeeding in a claim;
  • No oral evidence would be required to adjudicate the matter;
  • There is a compelling reason for allowing or disallowing the claim without oral evidence.

6. The scope of Summary Judgment has also been explained by the Delhi High Court in the judgment of R. Impex v. Punj Lloyd Ltd.[3], as under:

“18….but vide the said Act, Order XIII-A titled “Summary Judgment” has been incorporated in  CPC insofar as applicable to commercial suits and Rule 2 whereof, while prescribing the stage for making application for summary judgment, provides that the same be filed at any time after the summons have been served on the defendant but not after the court has framed the issues in respect of the suit. Rule 3 of Order XIII-A, while prescribing the grounds for summary judgment, empowers the Court to give summary judgment against a plaintiff or defendant on a claim, if it considers inter alia that the plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, as the case may be and there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed before recording of oral evidence. Rule 4 prescribes the procedure for making summary judgment.

                    *                         *                             *

 27. The purpose of the proviso to Rule 2 of Order XIII-A is to discourage filing of applications for summary judgment after issues have been framed, thereby delaying trial and to empower the Court to, if finding the same to be dilatory, dismiss the same in limine.

 28. The objective of the Commercial Courts Act even otherwise is to expedite the disposal of the commercial suits and none of the provisions thereof can be interpreted as counterproductive to the said objective of the Commercial Courts Act and it would delay rather than expedite the disposal of commercial suits, if inspite of finding a suit to be befitting of summary judgment, the Court considers itself constrained merely on account of issues having been framed.”

7. The scope of Summary Judgment as also the object of CCA was re-emphasised by the  Delhi High Court in Mallcom (India) Limited  Rakesh Kumar[4].

 8. The above principle has been reiterated in the matter of Jindal Saw Limited Aperam Stainless Services and Solutions Precision SAS[5], wherein the Delhi High Court have explained the scope of Order XIII-A  CPC. The relevant text of the judgment is reproduced below:

“22. Order XIII-A CPC, as made applicable to commercial suits within the meaning of the Commercial Courts Act, is titled “Summary Judgment”. Rule 2 thereof provides, that an application for summary judgment may be made at any time after summons have been served on the defendant, till the framing of issues. Rule 3 is as under:

3. Grounds for summary judgment.–…………….

(a) the plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, as the case may be; and

(b) there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence.”

  1. Rule 4 thereof providing the procedure for applying for a summary judgment inter alia requires the applicant to state the reason why there are no real prospects of succeeding on the claim or defending the claim and requires notice of the said application to be given to the opposite party of 30 days, and the reply to such application to precisely identify the points of law if any and the reasons why the relief of summary judgment should not be granted and why there are real prospects of succeeding on the claim or defending the claim and to state the issues to be framed for trial and what evidence is to be lead thereon and permits additional documentary evidence to be filed with such reply.”

 

9. Reference in this regard may also be made to Oxbridge Associates Limited v. Atul Kumra[6] and Universal Contractors & Engineers (P) Ltd. v. National Projects Constructions Corporation Ltd.[7]

10. Comparing the scope of Order XII Rule 6 CPC and Order XIII–A CPC, the Delhi High Court in its judgment Venezia Mobili (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd.[8], observed as under:

 “36…broadly speaking, the basis for seeking summary judgment as well as judgment on admission is the same i.e. that there is no triable issue which arises for consideration, there are reasons for allowing the claim without oral evidence and the defence raised by the defendants is a moonshine and a sham.”

 11. Re-emphasising the legislative intent in incorporating Order XIII–A CPC, the Delhi High Court in  Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. v. Kunwer Sachdev[9], observed as:

49. Consequently, this Court is of the view that when a summary judgment application allows the Court to find the necessary facts and resolve the dispute, proceeding to trial would generally not be proportionate, timely or cost effective. It bears reiteration that the standard for fairness is not whether the procedure is as exhaustive as a trial, but whether it gives the Court the confidence that it can find the necessary facts and apply the relevant legal principles so as to resolve the dispute as held in Robert Hryniak (supra).

50. In fact, the legislative intent behind introducing summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC is to provide a remedy independent, separate and distinct from judgment on admissions and summary judgment under Order XXXVII CPC.

 51. This Court clarifies that in its earlier judgment in Venezia Mobili (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Ramprastha Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd.[10], while deciding two applications, both filed by the plaintiff in the said case (one under Order XII Rule 6 and other under Order XIII-A) it had applied the lowest common denominator test under both the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and held that the suit could be decreed by way of a summary judgment.

52. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that there will be ‘no real prospect of successfully defending the claim’ when the Court is able to reach a fair and just determination on the merits of the application for summary judgment. This will be the case when the process allows the court to make the necessary finding of fact, apply the law to the facts, and the same is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a fair and just result…”

 It is thus clear that Order XIII–A CPC confers much wider powers upon the Commercial Courts for a speedy and expeditious disposal of Commercial Suits than under Order XII Rule 6 CPC which, as held above, is a test of lowest denominator for the purposes of Order XIII–A CPC.

12. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 129 CPC, the Delhi High Court has framed the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. Chapter X-A of the said Rules under the heading Case Management, and more particularly relating to Summary Judgment provides as under:

 1. Summary Judgment.- At the time of Case Management hearing, a Court, may of its own, decide a claim pertaining to any dispute, by a summary judgment, without recording oral evidence.”

(emphasis supplied)

13. It is trite law that in case of conflict between the provisions of CPC and Original Side Rules, the latter would prevail and override the former. [Refer HTIL Corporation B.V. v. Ajay Kohli[11]; Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc.[12] and Print Pak Machinery Ltd. v. Jay Kay Papers Converters[13].]

14. Though Order XIII–A CPC, as applicable to CCA, provides for presentation of a formal application as also the outer time-limit for moving such an application, however, not only in view of the Original Side Rules of the Delhi High Court to the contrary but also interpreting the provisions of Order XIII–A CPC by the Delhi High Court on the touchstone of Doctrine of Purposive Legislation, while interpreting the same, held that an application is not essential to seek summary judgment and the Court, on its own or on the asking of either party, at any point of time, even after settlement of issues, is entitled to see/adjudicate as to whether a case for summary judgment is made out. [See R. Impex[14] (supra), Mallcom (India) Limited[15] (supra) and Jindal Saw Limited[16] (supra]).


*Advocate and a qualified Chartered Accountant. Author is currently a Senior Associate in the Dispute Resolution Practice at L&L Partners Law Offices, New Delhi. Author’s views are personal only.

[1] (2017) 1 HCC (Del) 100 : 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6394 at p. 110

[2]2018 SCC OnLine Del 11911 

[3] 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6667

[4] 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7646

[5] 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9163

[6]2019 SCC OnLine Del 10641

[7] 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11436

[8] 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7761

[9] 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10764

[10] 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7761

[11] 2006 SCC OnLine Del 657

[12] (2005) 2 SCC 145

[13] 1979 SCC OnLine Del 123

[14] 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6667

[15] 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7646

[16] 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9163

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Manmohan, J. allowed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the use of plaintiff’s registered trademark SanDisk.

The plaintiff is one of the largest dedicated provider of flash memory storage solutions under the house mark SanDisk. It is a Fortune 500 and S&P 500 company which designs, develops and manufactures data storage solutions in a range of form factors using the flash memory, controller and firmware technologies. It possesses trademark registration for SanDisk in more than 150 countries. It is also a registered proprietor of variety of word marks and device marks in India. The defendant, on the other hand, was an authorized third party, selling counterfeit microSDHC cards bearing the mark SanDisk in locally-printed packaging. The present suit was filed for permanently restraining the defendant from selling the said product and thereby infringing plaintiff’s trademark.

The High Court noted that Order XIII-A of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 empowers the Court to pass a summary judgment, without recording evidence, if it appears that the defendant has no real prospect of defending the claim and there is no other compelling reason why the claim shouldn’t be disposed of. In the Court’s opinion, the defendant had no real prospects of defending the suit as the defendant did not file its written statement despite entering appearance nor denied the documents of the plaintiff. Moreover, the instant was a clear case of infringement of plaintiff’s registered trademark. The Court was of the view that the defendant was using plaintiff’s trademark to trade upon and benefit from the immense reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff’ mark and pass on the products as those of the plaintiff. In view of the aforesaid, the Court allowed the suit with actual costs. [Sandisk LLC v. Memory World,2018 SCC OnLine Del 11243, dated 12-09-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: The Divisional Bench of Badar Durez and Ashutosh Kumar, JJ. while disposing of an appeal gave relief to party whose suit was dismissed at the admission stage  by invoking the provisions of Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It was held by the Court that appeal was dismissed at its admission stage without issuing summons and without any application for summary judgement in the absence of which the Judge himself cannot invoke Order XIII-A  CPC.

In the present case the appellants had filled an appeal  against the defendants for permanent injunction restraining them from infringement of trademarks and also claiming damages of up to Rs 1 Crore . The appeal was dismissed by the  court by invoking Rule 3 of Order XIII-A of CPC, Which according to the learned Single Judge could be invoked by the court if it thinks there is no real prospect of the plaintiff succeeding on the claim or no prospect of the defendant successfully defending the claim, in such cases the court in order to not  take upon itself the burden of new cases without following any procedure for issuing summary judgement, can dismiss an appeal.

The Divisional Bench differed in view and held that this power can be exercised by the court only after summons have been issued and thereafter application is filed for summary judgement. The Court also found that the Single Judge had based his conclusion of denying the appeal on facts which he had observed personally, the Divisional Bench disregarded this method and observed that the Judge could not become witness in a case before him that too without giving opportunity of rebuttal to the appellants. [Bright Enterprises Private Ltd. v. MJ Bizcraft LLP, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6394 , decided on 4.01.2016]