Delhi High Court
M/S Flint Group India Private ... vs M/S Good Morning India Media ... on 12 April, 2017
$~A-62
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 12.04.2017.
+ CM(M) 369/2017 and CM Nos. 13049-50/2017
M/S FLINT GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Anand Mishra, Mr. Hemant
Kumar and Mr. Utkarsh Tripathi, Advocates
versus
M/S GOOD MORNING INDIA MEDIA PRIVATE
LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (Oral)
1. By the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 16.05.2016 by which
order the trial court converted the suit filed by the petitioner under Order 37
CPC based on invoices into an ordinary suit and issued summons to the
respondent. The petitioner filed a review petition against the said order dated
16.05.2016 but the same was also dismissed on 24.09.2016.
2. The petitioner has filed the suit under Order 37 CPC for recovery of
Rs.31,73,423/-. The suit is filed under Order 37 CPC based on invoices.
3. The trial court by the impugned order dated 16.05.2016 held that a
suit based on invoices does not fall within the parameters of Order 37 CPC.
CM(M) 369/2017 Page 1
Similarly, while dismissing the review petition on 24.09.2016, the trial court
held that a contract comes into existence only upon making of an offer and
acceptance of an offer. It also held that the purchase order is an offer and the
acceptance is implied in the conduct of the party in performing the terms of
the offer. It concluded that invoices themselves are not binding contracts.
4. I have learned counsel for the petitioner. He relies upon the judgments
of this court in the case of M/s. KIG Systel Ltd. vs. M/s Fujitsu ICIM Ltd.,
AIR 2001 Delhi 357, Bharat Forge Ltd. vs. Onil Gulati, 2005 (121) DLT
357 and Harakaran Dass Deep Chand vs. Viren Agrotech Pvt. Ltd., ILR
(2014) 2 Del. 1545 to contend that the settled legal position by this court is
that invoices tentamount to written contract based on which a suit under
Order 37 CPC would lie.
5. As the impugned order has been passed without issuing
summons/notice to the respondent, it is not necessary at this stage to issue
notice to the respondent for disposal of the present petition.
6. A perusal of the invoices filed by the petitioner on which reliance is
placed in the plaint would show that the details of the goods which are
sought to be sold, the price, the details of the purchaser of the goods and
some terms and conditions are clearly stated in the invoices. This court in
the case of Bharat Forge Ltd. vs. Onil Gulati(supra) held as follows:-
"11. That an invoice which incorporates the particulars of
seller, purchaser, description of goods, weight, quantity, rates
and price including sales tax and other dues, accompanied with
additional terms as noticed in the present case would be
regarded as a written contract on acceptance by the respondent
is no longer res integra. Reference may usefully be made to the
following judgments:-
CM(M) 369/2017 Page 2
(i) ILR (1982) 1 Delhi, 320, Mrs. Sushila Mehta v. Sh. Bansi
Lal Arora relevant paras 9,10 and 11
(ii) AIR 1992 Delhi I, Punjab Pen House v. Samarat Bicycle
Ltd.
(iii) (1997) 67 DLT 13, Daya Chand Uttam Prakash Jain v.
Santosh Devi Sharma.
(iv) 1998 (3) AD (Delhi) 141 : (1998 AIHC 3118), Beacon
Electronics v. Sylvania & Laxman Ltd.
(v) (2001) 92 DLT 88, KLG Systel Ltd. v. Fujitsu ICIM Ltd.
(vi) 2004 (76) DJR, 208, Indian Iron & Steel Company Ltd. v.
Nada Brothers and Ors.
xxx
13. In the instant case, as we have noticed the invoices clearly
contain the terms of supply and other requisite terms, price for
effecting the sale of goods is given. The invoices have been
acted upon, accepted and partly paid. In these circumstances,
the preliminary objection raised as to the non maintainability of
the suit under Order 37 is devoid of merit.
7. Similarly, this court in the case of M/s. KIG Systel Ltd. vs. M/s
Fujitsu ICIM Ltd.(supra) held as follows:
"11. The defendant/applicant has also challenged the
maintainability of the suit under Order XXXVII of the C.P.C.,
stating that "there is no debt or liquidated demand in money
payable to defendant-Company (sic. read Plaintiff)) and/or
based on a written contract". It is no longer res integra that
Invoices/Bills are 'written contracts' within the contemplation of
this Order. Reference is directed to Messrs. Punjab Pen House
vs. Samrat Bicycle Ltd., AIR 1992 Delhi 1, Corporate Voice
(Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Uniroll Leather India Ltd., (1995) 60 DLT 321,
and Beacon Electronics vs. Sylvania and Laxman Ltd., 1998 (3)
Apex Decisions (Delhi) 141. There is, thus, no hesitancy in
CM(M) 369/2017 Page 3
holding that the present suit is a suit which should be tried
under the summary procedure of Order XXXVII of the C.P.C."
8. In view of the above, it is manifest that an invoice can be a basis for
filing a suit under Order 37 CPC. The impugned order suffers from material
illegality as it concludes that a suit on an invoice does not fall under Order
37 CPC.
9. Accordingly, I quash the impugned order and set aside the same. The
suit will be treated as a suit under Order 37 CPC.
10. The petition stands disposed of.
11. However, it may be clarified that any observations made herein shall
not in any manner influence the trial court while adjudicating the application
for leave to defend that may be filed by the defendant.
12. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
JAYANT NATH, J
APRIL 12, 2017
rb
CM(M) 369/2017 Page 4
