M/S Takshashila Hotels PVT LTD vs. Mohd Illyas

Facts

The Appellant, M/s Takshashila Hotels Pvt. Ltd., is challenging a judgment from the District Judge (Commercial-02) dated August 31, 2024. The Trial Court directed the Appellant to pay the Respondent, Mohd. Illyas, Rs. 16,76,537/- with interest. The Respondent, a sole proprietor, had supplied furniture to the Appellant in 2017 for Rs. 61,76,537/-. The Respondent claimed an outstanding amount of Rs. 21,76,537/- after receiving Rs. 40,00,000/-. The Appellant initially acknowledged this debt in January 2020 and proposed a settlement plan. However, disputes arose regarding the exact amount due, with the Appellant later admitting liability for Rs. 4,27,743/-. The Respondent filed a suit for recovery, and the Trial Court decreed it ex-parte due to the Appellant's failure to file a Written Statement within the stipulated time.

Held

The High Court held that the Trial Court's Summary Judgment was justified. Regarding the first issue, the Court found that the Respondent had provided sufficient material, including invoices and the Appellant's own acknowledgment of liability, which substantially complied with the requirements of Order XIII-A Rule 4(1). The Appellant's defense focused on technicalities rather than substantive issues. Concerning the second issue, the Court found that the Appellant's reply dated January 13, 2020, unequivocally acknowledged liability for Rs. 21,76,537/- and proposed an installment plan. The subsequent partial payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- demonstrated adherence to the settlement, preventing the Appellant from later claiming the offer was conditional. The Court concluded that there was no genuine issue for trial. On the third issue, the Court affirmed that the Appellant's failure to file a Written Statement, coupled with its admissions and conduct, indicated a lack of substantial defense, justifying the Summary Judgment. The Appeal was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in passing a Summary Judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC, read with Order VIII Rule 1 and 10, when the Respondent failed to file documentary evidence proving the existence of a valid contract, as argued by the Appellant, relying on *Christian Loubouti Sas v. Abuhaker*? 2. Whether the Appellant's reply dated January 13, 2020, and subsequent email constituted an unconditional admission of liability for Rs. 21,76,537/-, as contended by the Respondent, or a conditional offer of settlement, as argued by the Appellant? 3. Whether the Appellant's failure to file a Written Statement within the stipulated time automatically entitled the Respondent to a Summary Judgment, or if the Court must first satisfy itself that no material facts are in dispute, as argued by the Appellant, citing *Atanu Bhattacharjee & Anr. v. Corporation Bank* and *Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan*?