Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Calcutta High Court

Sleepwell Industries Co. Ltd vs Bank Of Baroda on 9 April, 2015

Author: Soumen Sen

Bench: Soumen Sen

ORDER SHEET
                           GA No.496 of 2015
                           CS No.196 of 2011
                   IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                    Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
                             ORIGINAL SIDE

                                        SLEEPWELL INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.
                                                              Versus
                                                     BANK OF BARODA
 BEFORE:
 The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN

Date: 9th April, 2015 Appearance Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Satadeep Bhattacharyya, Adv.

Mr. Tilak Bose, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Silendra Jain, Adv.

The application being GA No.496 of 2015 is filed by the defendant who had entered appearance in the suit pursuant to the service of summons but did not file its affidavit as required under Order XXXVII Rule 3 Sub-rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant is admittedly out of time. The defendant prays for condonation of delay in applying for leave to defend in the suit.

Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the defendant has substantial merits and in the event defendant is not allowed to defend, irreparable loss and prejudice would be caused to the said defendant. The defendant says that the document is unstamped and raised disputes with regard to the merits of the claim. Those averments were made in order to impress upon the 2 Court unless leave to defend is given to the defendant, it would cause irreparable loss and prejudice.

At this stage, the Court is not required to go into the merits but requires to be satisfied that if sufficient cause exists for allowing the defendant to apply for leave to defend.

Having considered the pleadings, in my view, the applicant has been able to make out a sufficient cause to condone the delay and permit the defendant bank to apply for leave to defend. In view thereof, there shall be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the application. Affidavit in opposition shall be filed by the plaintiff within four weeks from date; reply thereto, if any, may be filed within two weeks after reopening of Court after summer vacation. The matter shall appear in the list along with GA No.1774 of 2012 under the heading "Chamber Application for Final Disposal" three weeks after reopening of Court after summer vacation.

(SOUMEN SEN, J.) AKGoswami