Mr. Naveen Kumar Vishwanath vs. Sirena Technologies PVT. LTD.
Facts
The petitioner, Mr. Naveen Kumar Vishwanath, proprietor of Nagsar Infotec, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 80,57,007/- with interest and applicable GST from the first defendant, and Rs. 9,13,792/- with interest and applicable GST from the second defendant. Additionally, the petitioner sought the recovery of 29 laptops wrongfully retained by both defendants. The petitioner filed an application for summary judgment under Order 13-A Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC, contending that the defendants had admitted their claim in their written statement and other documents. The trial court dismissed this application, finding no admissions from the defendants.
Held
The Court held that the trial court was correct in dismissing the application for summary judgment. The Court found no admissions in the legal notices and reply notices issued by the defendants. Specifically, regarding the laptops, the defendants' reply stated they were ascertaining the amount unlawfully gained by the plaintiff due to dishonest actions and would not return the devices until then. This was deemed a reason for retention, not an admission of the plaintiff's claim. The Court reiterated that for summary judgment under Order 13-A CPC, the plaintiff must establish grounds under Rule 3, which the petitioner failed to do. Therefore, there were no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the petitioner's application for summary judgment under Order 13-A Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC, despite alleged admissions by the defendants in their written statement and reply notices? (Question of law and fact, turning on Order 13-A Rule 1 and 4 of the CPC). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the defendants' reply notices dated 07.08.2020 and 13.05.2021, along with their written statement, contained admissions regarding the commercial transactions and the retention of laptops, which warranted a summary judgment. Revenue/State's Contention: The respondents (defendants) did not file any specific arguments recorded in the judgment regarding this issue. However, the trial court's reasoning, as reflected in the judgment, indicated that the defendants had disputed the claim and no admissions could be found.
Sections Cited
Order 13-A Rule 4, Section 151, Order 13-A Rule 1, Order 13-A Rule 3
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 21794 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) Between:
Mr. Naveen Kumar Vishwanath S/o. Sri L.Viswanath Aged about 39 years, Sole Proprietor of Nagsar Infotec Office at No.23, 1st Main Road, Srikanta Layout, High Grounds, Bengaluru 560001 …Petitioner (By Sri Gaurav G.K, Advocate)
And:
Sirena Technologies Pvt. Ltd., No.34/1, 8th Floor, Sakti Statesman Building, 7th Main, Iblur Green Glen Layout, Bellandur, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru 560103 Represented by its Managing Director
Sirena Labs Pvt. Ltd., Office at No.301/34/1-9 Ibbalur Begur Hobli, Bengaluru 560102 Represented by its Managing Director. …Respondents
(By Sri Abhilash Vaidyanathan, Advocate for R1 & R2) COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 - This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to-set aside the order dated 20.09.2022 on I.A.N
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.