H Arora & Company vs. Sahil Capital Services Ltd

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7161 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 37806 of 2012)

|M/s H.Arora & Company & Anr. |.. Appellant(s) |

Versus

|M/s Sahil Capital Services Ltd. |.. Respondent(s) |

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No. 3823 of 2008, dated 30.08.2012. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has reversed the judgment and order passed by the First Appellate Court.

3. The Respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- alleging that the Appellants-defendants borrowed Rs.12,50,000/- from the Respondent-plaintiff through cheque dated 27.01.1996 and agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per annum but failed to repay the same.

4. The Appellants-defendants had denied the claim so made by the Respondent-plaintiff. The Trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties to the lis have come to the conclusion that the Respondentplaintiff had not proved its case and, accordingly, had dismissed the suit.

5. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the Trial Court, the Respondentplaintiff had preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The Court after considering the various issues canvassed by both the parties, affirmed the findings and conclusion reached by the Trial court.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the Respondent-plaintiff had approached the High Court by filing the Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court has allowed the appeal and has decreed the suit. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court, the Appellants-defendants are before us in this appeal.

7. One of the contentions canvassed by the appellants-defendants at this stage is that the High Court while recording the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court ought to have framed a substantial question of law for its consideration and decision. Since that has not been done by the High Court, it is stated that the orders passed by the High Court are not only erroneous but wholly improper. In support of that contention learned counsel has brought to our notice the judgment of this Court.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent-plaintiff submits that the High Court has framed the question of law for its consideration and only thereafter has decided the issues. In support of his contention learned counsel has invited our attention to the judgment of this Court in the case of M.S.V. Raja and Anr. vs. Seeni Thevar and Ors., reported in (2001) 6 SCC 652.

9. In our opinion, the aforesaid decision of this court would not assist the Respondent-plaintiff in any manner, whatsoever. It is now well settled position of law that the High Court when it intends to reverse the findings and conclusion reached by the Trial Court, is expected to frame a substantial question of law and then only answer the issues raised by the parties one way or the other. Since that has not been done, in our opinion, the judgment and order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained. For the aforesaid proposition, we need not have to burden our judgment by referring to the decision to which reference was placed by learned counsel for the appellants.

10. In view of the above, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court. We remand the matter back to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after framing an appropriate substantial question of law.

11. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. All the contentions of all the parties are left open.

Ordered accordingly

...........................J. [H. L. DATTU]

...........................J. [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 26, 2013.

ITEM NO. 50 COURT NO.4 SECTION IVB

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).37806/2012

(From the judgement and order dated 30/08/2012 in RSA No.3823/2008 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)

VERSUS

M/S SAHIL CAPITAL SERVICES LTD. Respondent(s)

(With prayer for interim relief and office report)

Date: 26/08/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

For Petitioner(s) Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG Ms. Pragati Neekhra,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. B.S. Banthia,Adv. (NP)

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the High court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after framing an appropriate substantial question of law. All the contentions of all the parties are left open.

| [ Charanjeet Kaur ] | | [ Vinod Kulvi ] | |Court Master | |Asstt. Registrar |

[ Signed order is placed on the file ]