M/S FROST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED versus M/S MILAN DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS (P) LIMITED & ANR.

M/S FROST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED versus M/S MILAN DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS (P) LIMITED & ANR.

The revisional court (District Court) had jurisdiction under the Orissa amendment to Section 115 CPC to allow the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and reject the plaint because the declaratory reliefs sought would, on the face of the plaint and documents, impermissibly frustrate the plaintiff's remedies under the Negotiable Instruments Act and were barred by law; accordingly the High Court erred in setting aside the revisional court order and remanding the matter, and the revisional court order rejecting the plaint was restored.

Parties
Appellant / Defendant No.1: M/S FROST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED; Respondent / Plaintiff: M/S MILAN DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS (P) LIMITED; Respondent No.2 / Defendant No.2: Sri Dilip Das
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (supreme Court) / Final Judgment on Appeal Restoring Revisional Court Order Rejecting Plaint
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court order set aside; revisional court order restored; plaint rejected.
Legal Topics
Order VII Rule 11 CPC Rejection of Plaint, Revisional Jurisdiction Under Section 115 CPC (orissa Amendment), Declaratory Reliefs and Section 34 SR Act Proviso, Dishonour of Cheque and Section 138 NI Act, Presumption Under Section 118 NI Act, Injunction Restraining Criminal or Other Proceedings (section 41 SR Act), Writ Remedy Under Article 227
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Specific Relief Act, 1963 Civil Procedure Contract Law Order VII Rule 11 CPC Rejection of Plaint Revisional Jurisdiction Under Section 115 CPC (orissa Amendment) Declaratory Reliefs and Section 34 SR Act Proviso +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/S FROST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

Appellant / Defendant No.1

M/S MILAN DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS (P) LIMITED

Respondent / Plaintiff

Sri Dilip Das

Respondent No.2 / Defendant No.2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (supreme Court) / Final Judgment on Appeal Restoring Revisional Court Order Rejecting Plaint

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the revisional court (District Court) had jurisdiction under Section 115 (Orissa amendment) to allow an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and thereby reject the plaint
  2. 2 Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action
  3. 3 Whether the suit seeking declaratory reliefs (that the cheque was only security) was barred by the Specific Relief Act (Section 34 proviso)

Ratio Decidendi

The revisional court (District Court) had jurisdiction under the Orissa amendment to Section 115 CPC to allow the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and reject the plaint because the declaratory reliefs sought would, on the face of the plaint and documents, impermissibly frustrate the plaintiff's remedies under the Negotiable Instruments Act and were barred by law; accordingly the High Court erred in setting aside the revisional court order and remanding the matter, and the revisional court order rejecting the plaint was restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned High Court order set aside; revisional court order restored; plaint rejected.

Orders

  • Impugned order of the High Court dated 19.01.2016 is set aside
  • Order of the revisional court dated 23.02.2013 in C.R.P. No.5 of 2012 is restored