METOMATIC INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs PRV ALLOYS LLP

Judgment text excerpt

$~125 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 21.01.2025 + RFA(COMM) 46/2025 METOMATIC INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD .....Appellant Through: Dr.Amit George, Mr.Nitesh Mehra, Ms.Hitankshi Mehra, Ms.Ananya Sikri, Mr.Dushyant Kishan Kaul, Advs. versus PRV ALLOYS LLP .....Respondent Through: Nemo CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral) CM APPL. 3825/2025 (Exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. RFA (COMM) NO. 46/2025 and CM APPL. 3824/2025 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, challenging the Order dated 23.12.2024 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-01), Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in CS(COMM) 442/2024, titled PRV Alloys LLP v. Metomatic Industries Private Limited, partially decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff/respondent herein for a sum of Rs.12,98,040/-, under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RFA(COMM) 46/2025 Page 1 of 3 By:SUNIL Signing Date:27.01.2025 20:17:40 ‘CPC’). 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that though the appellant had admitted that it owes a sum of Rs.12,98,040/- to the respondent, at the same time, in the written statement, has taken the plea of lack of jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court. He submits that without considering the said plea, a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC could not have been passed. He further submits that the penultimate paragraph of the Impugned Order would also shows that the decree has been passed stating it to be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the defendant and subject to the final disposal/outcome of the suit. He submits th