Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Essar House Pvt. Ltd vs Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. ... on 1 February, 2021

Iifl Finance Ltd. (Erstwhile India ... vs Shrenik Dhirajmal Siroya on 18 February, 2021

10. A limited ad-interim order is thus now necessary. There is a sufcient prima facie case and the balance of convenience is with the Petitioners. The debt can hardly be disputed. There is no question of a Section 9 order being fettered by the provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This law is now too well-settled to admit of any dispute.1 1 See: Essar House Pvt Ltd v Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 149; Valentine Maritime Ltd v Kreuz Subsea Pte Ltd & Anr, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 75; Jagdish Ahuja & Anr v Cupino Ltd, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 849.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 10 - G S Patel - Full Document

Parle Agro Pvt Ltd vs Shree Aqua Purifier Pvt Ltd on 12 February, 2021

21. The recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court (RD Dhanuha and VG Bhisht JJ) in Essar House Private Limited v Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd1 mahes it clear that there is no requirement that for such relief an iron-clad case under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("dkCPC") must be made out (or, if not argued, that the Court must hunt for it). The Division Bench reaffirmed the principle that has long been settled, and restated repeatedly, but which seem to be reagitated in the wrong way again and again. The Division Bench said in the clearest terms that the principles of the CPC, including especially Order 38 Rule 5, are guides to a Section 9 Court and the order it mahes under that Section, not fetters upon the Court's discretion.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 10 - G S Patel - Full Document

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd vs Williamson Magor And Co. Ltd. And Anr on 5 March, 2021

31. Lest it be argued either here or in any other forum that no case has been made out under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"), which seems to me more or less the habitual and automatic chanting of every respondent in a Section 9 Petition, this needs to be stated: that is not the lawd The recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court (RD Dhanuka and VG Bhisht JJ) in Essar House Private Limited v Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd9 makes it clear that there is no requirement that for such relief an iron-clad case under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") must be made out (or, if not argued, that the Court must hunt for it)d The Division Bench reafrmed the principle that has long been settled, and restated repeatedly, but which seem to be reagitated in the wrong way again and againd The Division Bench said in the clearest terms that the principles of the CPC, including especially Order 38 Rule 5, are guides to a Section 9 Court and the order it makes under that Sectiond They are not fetters upon the Section 9 Court's discretiond On my reading of the Division Bench order, the position in law is that in such a case an order of deposit not only can be made, but ought to be maded In Valentine Maritime Ltd v Kreuz Subsea Pte Ltd & Anr ,10 the Division Bench of this Court reiterated this position regarding Order 38 Rule 5 and also held that in appropriate case, where the defence is prima facie untenable, the Petitioner has a chance of success, and the defence is moonshine, an order of deposit to secure the claim can and indeed should be made under Section 9d This was also the view of another Division Bench of this Court in Jagdish Ahuja & Anr v 92021 SCC OnLine Bom 149d 10 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 75, (paragraphs 88, 95 to 97 and 101)d Page 15 of 18 5th March 2021 11-CARBPL87-2020.DOC Cupino Ltdd11 All three decisions referenced and explained the previous Division Bench decision in Nimbus Communications Ltd v Board of Control for Cricket in India,12 and the Supreme Court decision in Adhunik Steels Ltd v Orissa Manganese & Minerals (P) Ltdd13 I followed the Division Bench decisions (referencing this law) in Parle Agro Pvt Ltd v Shree Aqua Purifer Pvt Ltd 14 and IIFL Finance Ltd v Shrenik Dhirajmal Siroyad15
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 8 - G S Patel - Full Document

Tata Motors Finance Ltd vs Mehrab Logistic And Aviations Ltd And ... on 5 March, 2021

14. The recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court (RD Dhanuka and VG Bhisht JJ) in Essar House Private Limited v Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd1 makes it clear that there is no requirement that for such relief an iron-clad case under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") must be made 1 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 149.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - G S Patel - Full Document

Unique Chains Pvt Ltd vs V.G.N.Jewellers And 5 Ors on 9 August, 2021

"31. Lest it be argued either here or in any other forum that no case has been made out under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"), which seems to me more or less the habitual and automatic chanting of every respondent in a Section 9 Petition, this needs to be stated: that is not the law. The recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court (RD Dhanuka and VG Bhisht JJ) in Essar House Private Limited v Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd makes it clear that there is no requirement that for such relief an iron-clad case under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") must be made out (or, if not argued, that the Court must hunt for it). The Division Bench reafrmed the principle that has long been settled, and restated repeatedly, but which seem to be reagitated in the wrong way again and again. The Division Bench said in the clearest terms that the principles of the CPC, including especially Order 38 Rule 5, are guides to a Section 9 Court and the order it makes under that Section. They are not fetters upon the Section 9 Court's discretion. On my reading of the Division Bench order, the position in law is that in such a case an order of deposit not only can be made, but ought to be made.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - B P Colabawalla - Full Document

Tata Capital Financial Services ... vs Mitashi Edutainment Private Limited ... on 8 September, 2021

"31. Lest it be argued either here or in any other forum that no case has been made out under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"), which seems to me more or less the habitual and automatic chanting of every respondent in a Section 9 Petition, this needs to be stated : that is not the law. The recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court (RD Dhanuka and VG Bhisht JJ) in Essar House Private Limited v. Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. [2021 SCC OnLine Bom 149] makes it clear that there is no requirement that for such relief an iron-
Bombay High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 1 - B P Colabawalla - Full Document

Affluence Media vs Pinka Studios Pvt. Ltd. And 4 Ors on 15 September, 2021

"31. Lest it be argued either here or in any other forum that no case has been made out under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"), which seems to me more or less the Vina Khadpe, PA Page 14 of 21 (12) ARBP(L) 16504.2021.doc habitual and automatic chanting of every respondent in a Section 9 Petition, this needs to be stated : that is not the law. The recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court (RD Dhanuka and VG Bhisht JJ) in Essar House Private Limited v. Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. [2021 SCC OnLine Bom 149] makes it clear that there is no requirement that for such relief an iron-clad case under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") must be made out (or, if not argued, that the Court must hunt for it). The Division Bench reaffirmed the principle that has long been settled, and restated repeatedly, but which seem to be reagitated in the wrong way again and again. The Division Bench said in the clearest terms that the principles of the CPC, including especially Order 38 Rule 5, are guides to a Section 9 Court and the order it makes under that Section. They are not fetters upon the Section 9 Court's discretion. On my reading of the Division Bench order, the position in law is that in such a case an order of deposit not only can be made, but ought to be made.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - B P Colabawalla - Full Document

Jayajit Trust vs Manish Khera And Anr on 20 September, 2021

"31. Lest it be argued either here or in any other forum that no case has been made out under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"), which seems to me more or less the habitual and automatic chanting of every respondent in a Section 9 Petition, this needs to be stated : that is not the law. The recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court (RD Dhanuka and VG Bhisht JJ) in Essar House Private Limited v. Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. [2021 SCC OnLine Bom 149] makes it clear that there is no requirement that for such relief an iron-
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - B P Colabawalla - Full Document

Aditya Birla Finance Ltd vs Airen Metals Pvt. Ltd. And 4 Ors on 1 October, 2021

"31. Lest it be argued either here or in any other forum that no case has been made out under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"), which seems to me more or less the habitual and automatic chanting of every respondent in a Section 9 Petition, this needs to be stated : that is not the law. The recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court (RD Dhanuka and VG Bhisht JJ) in Essar House Private Limited v. Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. [2021 SCC OnLine Bom 149] makes it clear that there is no requirement that for such relief an iron-clad case under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") must be made out (or, if not argued, that the Court must hunt for it). The Division Bench reaffirmed the principle that has long been settled, and restated repeatedly, but which seem to be reagitated in the wrong way again and again. The Division Bench said in the clearest terms that the principles of the CPC, including especially Order 38 Rule 5, are guides to a Section 9 Court and the order it makes under that Section. They are not fetters upon the Section 9 Court's discretion. On my reading of the Division Bench order, the position in law is that in such a case an order of deposit not only can be made, but ought to be made.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - B P Colabawalla - Full Document

Ultra Deep Subsea Pte Ltd vs Hindustan Oil Exploration Company ... on 13 December, 2021

"31. Lest it be argued either here or in any other forum that no case has been made out under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"), which seems to me more or less the habitual and automatic chanting of every respondent in a Section 9 Petition, this needs to be stated : that is not the law. The recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court (RD Dhanuka and VG Bhisht JJ) in Essar House Private Limited v. Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. [2021 SCC OnLine Bom 149] makes it clear that there is no requirement that for such relief an iron-clad case under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") must be made out (or, if not argued, that the Court must hunt for it). The Division Bench reaffirmed the principle that has long been settled, and restated repeatedly, but which seem to be reagitated in the wrong way again and again. The Division Bench said in the clearest terms that the principles of the CPC, including especially Order 38 Rule 5, are guides to a Section 9 Court and Ganesh Lokhande Page 36 of 48 CARBP(L)-22272-2021.doc the order it makes under that Section. They are not fetters upon the Section 9 Court's discretion. On my reading of the Division Bench order, the position in law is that in such a case an order of deposit not only can be made, but ought to be made.
Bombay High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - B P Colabawalla - Full Document
1   2 Next