TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds consolidation of suits, rejects stay under Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code.</h1> <h3>Sohal Engineering Works Versus Rustam Jehangir Vakil Mills Co. Ltd.</h3> The Court dismissed the Revision Application, upholding the order to consolidate the two suits and rejecting the stay of the subsequently instituted suit ... - Issues Involved:1. Consolidation of suits.2. Application of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. Inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.4. Alleged prejudice and embarrassment to the defendant-firm.Detailed Analysis:1. Consolidation of Suits:The original defendant challenged the order of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, which directed that the subsequently instituted suit should be tried and decided along with the previously instituted suit. The plaintiff-company had filed two suits arising from the same contract: the first suit to restrain the defendant-firm from diverting the machines to a third party, and the second suit for damages due to non-performance of the contract. The learned Judge consolidated the suits to save public time and expense and to avoid inconvenience to witnesses.2. Application of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure:The defendant-firm argued that the subsequently instituted suit should be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which mandates that no Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties. The Court examined whether the matter in issue in both suits was identical. It was held that although both suits arose from the same contract, the issues were not identical. The first suit sought to prevent a breach of contract, while the second suit sought damages for non-performance. Therefore, the field of controversy in both suits was not substantially the same, and Section 10 did not apply.3. Inherent Powers of the Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure:The defendant-firm contended that the Court did not have the power to consolidate suits under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the face of an objection by one of the parties. The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting that the inherent powers under Section 151 allow the Court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the Court's process. It was noted that consolidation of suits is permissible where common questions arise between the same parties, as it saves time and resources.4. Alleged Prejudice and Embarrassment to the Defendant-Firm:The defendant-firm argued that consolidating the suits would cause prejudice and embarrassment due to inconsistent pleas in the two suits. In the first suit, the plaintiff-company claimed that damages could not be adequately relieved by compensation in money, while in the second suit, it claimed substantial damages. The Court held that this inconsistency did not justify rejecting the consolidation of suits. It was noted that the plaintiff-company could seek specific performance and damages in the alternative, and the issue of election could be addressed at trial.Conclusion:The Court dismissed the Revision Application, holding that the order directing the consolidation of the two suits and refusing to stay the subsequently instituted suit under Section 10 was not erroneous. The rule was discharged with costs, and the application was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
