The Shriram Medisales Through Its Partners Sachin Sudhakar Inje And Others vs. Kavita Arvind Salunke

Held

The Court held that the applicants had failed to disclose a prima facie triable defence. The plaint clearly indicated outstanding amounts for specific bills, and the respondent had provided invoices, bills, and documents showing the availing of GST credits. The applicants' claim of payment to Bay Healthcare was not supported by any material showing they were instructed to do so or that there was a contract permitting such payment. The Court found it difficult to accept that outstandings were paid merely due to the close relationship between the directors of Bay Healthcare and the respondent. The documents produced by the applicants were insufficient to infer discharge of liability. The Court found the defence to be frivolous and that no case was made out, even for conditional leave, citing B. L. Kashyap and Sons Ltd. vs. M/s JMS Steels and Power Corporation and Anr. The Court also relied on Oriental Aromatics Limited vs. Poonam D. Bhatiya, Nitin Bhalchandra Tadsare and Another vs. Nityanand Srinivas Prabhu, and Jatin Koticha vs. VFC Industries Pvt. Ltd. to support the respondent's submissions. The impugned order was found to be neither illegal nor perverse, and a plausible view had been taken.

Facts

The respondent filed a Summary Civil Suit No.573 of 2024 against the applicants (original defendants) seeking recovery of Rs.4,82,456/- with interest. The applicants were supplied medical products on credit by the respondent between October 1, 2021, and March 2022. A demand notice was issued on June 11, 2024, and further communication was made via WhatsApp and email. The applicants did not respond, leading to the suit. The applicants applied for leave to defend the suit, contending that they had made full payment to Bay Healthcare, a sister concern of the respondent, and possessed documentary evidence to support this. They also alleged involvement of the respondent's proprietor and her husband in a criminal case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants have disclosed a prima facie triable defence to warrant leave to defend the Summary Civil Suit, particularly concerning the alleged payment to Bay Healthcare instead of the respondent-plaintiff? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908). Petitioner's Arguments: The applicants argued that the impugned order rejecting leave to defend was illegal and perverse. They claimed to have made full payment to Bay Healthcare, which is a sister concern of the respondent, and possess documentary evidence. They also raised allegations regarding the respondent's proprietor and her husband's involvement in a criminal case, suggesting mischief and an unsustainable claim by the respondent. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent contended that the bank statements produced by the applicants were unreliable and that outstanding amounts were still due. They argued that without a contract or written communication, payments to Bay Healthcare were not permissible. The respondent highlighted the applicants' failure to respond to the demand notices and stated that the Goods and Services Tax (GST) credited for the transactions indicated the applicants had benefited and were evading payment. They asserted that no defence was available to the applicants, and there was no nexus between the respondent and Bay Healthcare to infer discharge of liabilities.