Summary suit maintainability and territorial jurisdiction upheld; unparticularised loss claims did not justify unconditional leave to defend.

A summary suit founded on a written contract, purchase orders, invoices and the defendant's written balance confirmations remained maintainable despite reference to a running account. Territorial jurisdiction was upheld because the offer originated in Delhi, acceptance was communicated there, the contract was concluded there, and payments were received there. The contractual interest claim at 24% per annum was supported by invoice terms and was not unsubstantiated. A defence based on alleged delay, damage and losses did not justify unconditional leave to defend, as the losses were unparticularised and unsupported; conditional leave was allowed only on deposit of the admitted principal sum.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the suit could be maintained as a summary suit despite references to a running account; (ii) whether the Delhi Courts had territorial jurisdiction; (iii) whether the claim for interest at 24% per annum was unsupported; and (iv) whether the defence based on alleged delay, damage and losses entitled the defendant to unconditional leave to defend.

Issue (i): whether the suit could be maintained as a summary suit despite references to a running account.

Analysis: The suit was founded on a written contract formed by the offer, the purchase orders and the invoices raised in execution thereof. The claim was also supported by written acknowledgment and confirmation of balance by the defendant. A mere reference to a running account did not alter the essential character of the claim or take it outside the scope of summary procedure.

Conclusion: The suit remained maintainable under the summary procedure and the plea against maintainability failed.

Issue (ii): whether the Delhi Courts had territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: The offer originated from Delhi, the acceptance through purchase orders was communicated at Delhi, the contract was concluded at Delhi, and payments were also received at Delhi. Even apart from conflicting jurisdiction clauses appearing in the invoices and purchase orders, the material part of the cause of action arose in Delhi within the meaning of the territorial jurisdiction rule.

Conclusion: The objection to territorial jurisdiction was rejected and the Delhi Courts were held to have jurisdiction.

Issue (iii): whether the claim for interest at 24% per annum was unsupported.

Analysis: The invoice terms themselves stipulated interest at 24% per annum in the event of delayed payment. The rate was therefore traceable to the agreed contractual terms and was not an unsubstantiated demand.

Conclusion: The challenge to the interest claim failed.

Issue (iv): whether the defence based on alleged delay, damage and losses entitled the defendant to unconditional leave to defend.

Analysis: The alleged loss and damage claims were viewed against repeated written acknowledgments of liability by the defendant. No debit notes had been raised within the contractual framework, the alleged losses were not supported by sufficient particulars, and the contemporaneous correspondence showed an admitted outstanding balance. The defence raised triable questions only to a limited extent and did not justify unconditional leave.

Conclusion: Leave to defend was granted only on condition of deposit of the acknowledged principal sum, failing which the application would stand dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The defendant was not entitled to unconditional leave, but a conditional opportunity to contest was allowed on deposit of the admitted amount, thereby preserving the plaintiff's summary remedy while permitting a limited defence on terms.

Ratio Decidendi: In a summary suit founded on a written contract and acknowledged liability, a defence based on unparticularised damages or belated loss claims does not warrant unconditional leave to defend, and conditional leave may be granted where the defence is at best limited or doubtful.

---