http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: BRITISH INDIAN CORPORATION LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M/S. RASHTRACO FREIGHT CARRIERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/05/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. FAIZAN UDDIN (J) G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (4) 748        JT 1996 (5)   662  1996 SCALE  (5)11

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      The appellant had entrusted to the respondent 147 bales of  raw   wools  worth   Rs.51.48  lakhs   as  carriers  for transportation to  Cawnpore Woolen Mills. In spite of taking delivery thereof,  the respondent  had detained the goods in his custody, laid the suit O.S. No.612/94 in the Civil Court at  Kanpur   for  a  permanent  injunction  restraining  the appellant from taking forcibile possession of the goods with the allegation  that a  sum of  Rs.13,48,817.13 was due from the appellant towards arrears of transportation charges. The interim injunction  sought for  was  initially  granted  but later on  vacated. Ultimately,  in appeal,  the  High  Court directed the appellant to give bank guarantee to the tune of the amount  purported to  be due as pleaded for in the suit. We are informed that the bank guarantee has accordingly been given. The  appellant entrusted  taking of  delivery of  the possession of  the goods to the carriers-respondent who laid the suit  on July  1, 1994  and interim mandatory injunction was sought for and was granted.      These proceedings  arise out  of  an  application  made under Section  10 CPC  on September 19, 1994 seeking stay of the trial  in O.S.  No.793/94. The trial court dismissed it, but the  High Court  in revision  has directed  stay of  the suit. Thus, this appeal by special leave.      Section 10 of CPC envisages that no court shall proceed with the  trial of  any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly  and substantially  in issue  in a  previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom  they of  any of  them claim litigating under the same title  where such  suit is  pending in  the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed. It  is seen that the claim of the respondent in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

suit No.612/94  is for the recovery of the alleged dues said to be payable by the appellant-Corporation while the suit of the  appellant   is  for  recovery  of  the  goods  lawfully entrusted to  and unlawfully detained by the respondent. The causes of  action are entirely different. There is no common issue directly  or substantially in issue in both the suits. The High  Court, therefore,  committed gross error of law in staying the later suit.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed. The impugned order of the  High Court  dated 25th  May, 1995  is set  aside. No costs.