Scribd
Upload
325 views2 pages

M/S. Gupte Cardiac Care Centre & ... Vs Olympic Pharma Care Pvt. LTD

1) A hospital in Nashik filed a suit against a pharmaceutical company for recovery of money related to a defective heart-lung machine. 2) The company then filed a suit in Delhi against the hospital for outstanding payment. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the Nashik suit was filed first so it takes precedence based on section 10 of the civil procedure code. 4) It ordered that the Delhi suit be transferred to Nashik and the two suits be consolidated for a single trial.

Uploaded by

Chirag Agrawal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
325 views2 pages

M/S. Gupte Cardiac Care Centre & ... Vs Olympic Pharma Care Pvt. LTD

1) A hospital in Nashik filed a suit against a pharmaceutical company for recovery of money related to a defective heart-lung machine. 2) The company then filed a suit in Delhi against the hospital for outstanding payment. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the Nashik suit was filed first so it takes precedence based on section 10 of the civil procedure code. 4) It ordered that the Delhi suit be transferred to Nashik and the two suits be consolidated for a single trial.

Uploaded by

Chirag Agrawal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

NAME- CHIRAG AGRAWAL

ROLL NO.- 2018024

M/S. GUPTE CARDIAC CARE CENTRE & ... VS OLYMPIC PHARMA CARE
PVT. LTD1
FACTS

The suit at Nashik has been instituted first in point of time. By reference to Section 10 of the
CPC, the trial of the suit at Delhi, being the latter suit, shall be liable to be stayed. For the
exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
the only consideration which is relevant is 'expediency for ends of justice'. The court will have
regard to and respect for the rule enacted in Section 10 of the Code. Of course, the considerations
such as which is the place where most of the evidence is available, convenience of the parties
and witnesses, which one of the two places is more convenient to access and attend and so on are
also the factors to be kept in view and may in an appropriate case persuade this Court to direct a
transfer of case in departure from the rule underlying Section 10 of the Code. All would depend
on the facts and circumstances of a given case. So far as the present cases are concerned, we
deem it proper to transfer the suit at Delhi to the Court at Nashik for the purpose of hearing and
decision thereat. In doing so we are following the ordinary rule as we do not find any factor or
consideration relevant for making a departure therefrom.

INTERPRETATION

It appears that the Hospital needed a Heart-Lung Machine alongwith accessories manufactured
by the German company (the manufacturer) and marketed by the 'Dealer' in India. The machine
was delivered and installed. Disputes arose as the performance of the machine was not found to
be satisfactory. There was correspondence and notices exchanged and then suits filed. The suit
filed by the 'Hospital' at Nashik is for recovery of Rs.28,35,000/-. The plaintiffs therein have
claimed the return of the advance paid, compensation equivalent to the additional amount spent
by them for purchasing another machine and the interest on the said two sums. The suit instituted
by the 'Dealer' at Delhi is for recovery of Rs.20,00,000/- alleged to be outstanding by way of
balance price of the machine and interest thereon. T.P.(C) No.400/2003 has been filed by the
1
AIR 2014 SC 2339.
Hospital seeking transfer of the suit at Delhi to Nashik while T.P.(C) No.248/2004 has been filed
by the 'Dealer' seeking transfer of the suit at Nashik to Delhi.

T.P.(C) No.400/2003 is allowed. Suit No.190/2002 pending in the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi (Civil Original Ordinary Jurisdiction) is directed to be transferred to the Court of Civil
Judge S.D. Nashik at Nashik. Both the suits shall be consolidated for the purpose of trial. The
learned Civil Judge seized of the trial may frame consolidated issues taking into consideration
the pleadings in both the cases, and thereafter, set down the cases for consolidated trial.

T.P.(C) No.400 of 2003 is thus allowed.

T.P.(C) No.248 of 2004 is dismissed.

You might also like