Delhi High Court
Shree Bahubali Coal And Coke Private ... vs Vnu Coal Private Limited on 28 April, 2025
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: Subramonium Prasad
$~60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 28th APRIL, 2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 73/2025
SHREE BAHUBALI COAL AND COKE PRIVATE LIMITED
PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS SBCI PETROCHEM PRIVATE
LIMITED & ORS. ....Appellants
Through: Mr. Srivats Kaushal and Mr.
Girijapati Kaushal, Advocates.
versus
VNU COAL PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Gaurav Vig, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
CM APPL. 24947/2025 (Exemption from filing certified copies)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM APPL. 24946/2025 & CM APPL. 24949/2025
2. CM APPL. 24946/2025 has been filed by the Appellants seeking
condonation of delay of 15 days in filing the present appeal and CM APPL.
24949/2025 has been filed by the Appellants seeking condonation of delay
of 30 days in re-filing.
3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same are allowed.
4. The delay stands condoned.
5. The applications are disposed of.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 73/2025 & CM APPL. 24948/2025
6. The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellants challenging the
Order dated 04.12.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. No.
9735/2024, which was filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent herein under Order
XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC seeking permission to place additional documents
on record in CS(COMM) 812/2022.
7. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, leading to the present appeal
are that CS(COMM) 812/2022 has been filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent
herein seeking damages from the Defendants/Appellants herein for
cancellation of the Contracts dated 03.08.2021 & 04.08.2021 for sale of
3500 MT coal. In the Suit, it is the case of the Plaintiff that it entered into
two contracts dated 03.08.2021 & 01.10.2021 with the Defendant No.1
through an online portal for supply of 3500 MT of USA thermal coal @
11,000/- per MT+CESS+GST+TCS to be delivered ex-port Tuna. It is stated
that the lifting period for the contracted coal was between 01.10.2021 to
30.11.2021 and the total invoice value of the contracted coal was
Rs.4,20,56,000/- (Rs.2,41,31,000/- for Contract dated 03.08.2021 &
Rs.1,79,25,000/- for Contract dated 04.08.2021). It is the case of the
Plaintiff/Respondent herein that the said contracts were terminated by the
Defendants/Appellants herein and the Plaintiff had to enter into other
contracts for purchase of the same coal at a higher price from a different
vendor.
8. Summons in the suit were issued by the learned Single Judge. Written
Statement was filed by the Defendants/Appellant herein. In the Written
Statement, the primary issue raised by the Defendants/Appellants herein was
that the plaint does not reflect that the handling charges were paid by the
Plaintiff apart from other contentions that the plaint does not reflect the
correct data of supply of coal to Plaintiff from third party from whom the
Plaintiff alleges to have purchased the coal. An application, being I.A. No.
9735/2024 under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC was filed by the
Plaintiff/Respondent herein seeking permission of the Court to file 15
invoices to substantiate its contention that it suffered loss on account of
cancellation of the contracts by the Defendants/Appellants herein on account
of the fact that the contracted price between the Plaintiff and the third party
vendor was exclusive of the handling charges whereas in the contract
between the Plaintiff and the Defendants the contracted price was inclusive
of the handling charges. The said application was allowed by the learned
Single Judge vide Order dated 04.12.2024 allowing the Plaintiff/Respondent
herein to file those invoices. It is this Order which is under challenge in the
present Appeal.
9. It is the case of the Defendants/Appellants herein that permitting these
invoices to be taken on record would result in amending the original Plaint
and no reason has been given by the Plaintiff/Respondent herein in I.A. No.
9735/2024 as to why these documents had not been filed along with the
Plaint.
10. Heard the learned Counsels for the Appellants and the Respondent
and perused the material on record.
11. I.A. No. 9735/2024, filed by the Plaintiff before the learned Single
Judge is not one for amending the Plaint but for permission to file additional
documents. The Suit is at a nascent stage. Even issues have not been framed.
The argument of the Appellants that allowing the application of the Plaintiff
for bringing on record additional documents would change the nature of the
Suit, cannot be accepted.
12. The case of the Plaintiff/Respondent herein is that the contract
between the Plaintiff and the third party vendor, from whom the Plaintiff has
purchased the coal, does not include the handling charges which were paid
over and above the other charges while handling charges were included in
the contract price between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and 15 invoices
which are sought to be placed on record are to substantiate the claim of the
Plaintiff/Respondent herein that it suffered loss on account of cancellation of
the contract by the Defendants/Appellants herein. The arguments raised by
the Appellants herein are qua an application seeking amendment of the
Plaint. In the present case, the application filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent
herein before the learned Single Judge was not for amending the Plaint but
for placing on record certain additional documents.
13. The learned Single Judge has allowed the application by observing as
under:-
"4. This Court has considered the submissions of the
parties and perused the record.
5. The plaintiff along with the plaint itself had filed
'Annexure P-12' and 'Annexure P-13', which records
charges of Rs. 250 per MT payable as handling
charges and this document indicates that the charges
are payable towards the price for the goods. Thus, the
claim of the plaintiff qua the handling charges
incurred was inclusive in the claim raised in the
original plaint and is not an afterthought as alleged by
the defendant in its reply to the present application.
The assertion of the defendant that the proof of
handling charges and/or the claim of handling charges
is beyond the claim in the original plaint is not borne
out from the paper-book.
6. The plaintiff has filed the captioned suit for recovery
of the losses suffered by it due to the defendant no. 1's
non-performance of the contracts dated 03.08.2021
and 04.08.2021. To assess its claim for losses the
plaintiff has provided details of the costs incurred by it
for procuring 3500 MT from different vendors.
7. As per the plaintiff, the contract price between the
parties includes handling charges of Rs. 250 per MT
and the '15' invoices now sought to be placed on
record as additional documents substantiate the said
original claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has
contended that the charges were incurred as per
prevalent industry practice and the plaintiff verily
believed that the defendant would not dispute the cost
incurred in the written statement. The plaintiff has
stated that since defendant disputed this component of
the claim, the plaintiff has placed these additional
documents on record to substantiate this cost.
8. The defendant has not disputed the assertions of the
plaintiff that payment of handling charges is a
prevalent industry practice."
14. In the opinion of this Court, no prejudice will be caused to the
Defendants/Appellants herein by permitting the Plaintiff/Respondent in
placing the additional invoices on record. More so, when the case is at a
nascent stage. In the application, the Plaintiff/Respondent has properly
explained the reason for not filing the invoices with the Plaint. In fact, it is
only when the Defendants/Appellants herein raised objections qua handling
charges, it became necessary for the Plaintiff/Respondent herein to place the
invoices on record.
15. The view taken by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any
interference. In the opinion of this Court, the present appeal is devoid of
merits and is accordingly dismissed, along with the pending applications, if
any.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J
APRIL 28, 2025
Rahul
