Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.38 seconds)The Companies Act, 1956
State Bank Of India vs Midland Industries And Ors. on 17 September, 1987
23. Further the learned counsel for the defendant has relied
upon the decision reported in AIR 1988 Delhi 153 - State Bank
of India Vs Midland Industries and others. In the said case,
their lordships have held that, if a case involves questions which
23 O.S.No.1916/2013
cannot be conveniently disposed of on a motion under Order 12
Rule 6 of CPC, the Court is free to refuse exercising discretion in
favour of the party invoking it. Where, the defendants have
raised objections, which go to the root of the case, it would not
be proper to exercise this discretion and pass a decree in favour
of the plaintiff. If we consider the present case in the light of the
above said decision of their lordships, I found that, the ruling is
not applicable to the facts of the present case. The defendant in
the present case admits the contents of the plaint in its material
particulars. The only defence raised by the defendant is that,
considering their financial condition, their customer MTNL have
waived the LD and it is not waived on any technical ground.
Therefore, they cannot waive the LD in favour of the plaintiff.
The said contention of the defendant even if taken to be true, on
that ground the decree cannot be refused. The defendant
cannot withhold LD amount which is waived by MTNL in their
favour since the contract is on back to back basis. Hence, the
said ruling is also not applicable to the facts of the present case.
M/S. Puran Chand Packaging Industries ... vs Smt.Sona Devi & Anr. on 18 March, 2011
24. Further the learned counsel for the defendant has relied
upon the decision reported in (2008) ILR 2 Delhi 1200 -
Puran Chand Packaging Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Vs Smt.Sona Devi
24 O.S.No.1916/2013
and another. The facts of the said case are that, the case was
between landlord and the tenant. The defendant/tenant
admitted the relationship and has also admitted the receipt of
notice, rate of rent, but he contended that, after notice, the
landlord/plaintiff by increasing the rent by 30% as agreed, has
waived off the notice given by him. It was further contended
that, the respondent/plaintiff therein was under an obligation to
provide electricity of 120HP load power while he has only
provided electricity to the extent of 65HP on account of which
the premises could not be genuinely utlised. Thus, the said
admission was not based on unequivocal and unambiguous
admission. Therefore, their lordships have held that, the suit
could not be decreed on the basis of such admission. But in the
present case no such serious question of law or fact raised by
the defendant for decreeing the suit on the basis of admissions
given by them. Hence, the ruling is also not applicable to the
present facts of the case.
Uttam Singh Dugal & Co.Ltd vs Unied Bank Of India & Ors on 8 August, 2000
Charanjit Lal Mehra & Ors vs Smt.Kamal Saroj Mahajan&Anr on 11 March, 2005
Himani Alloys Ltd vs Tata Steel Ltd on 5 July, 2011
19. The learned counsel for the defendant has relied upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2011) 15 SCC
273 in the case of Himani Alloys Limited Vs Tata Steel Limited,
wherein, the admission was not given by the appellant, but it
was contained in the minutes of a meeting between the
respondent and another company. The respondent did not refer
to or rely upon any other admission. In the light of these facts,
their lordships have held that, unless the admission is clear,
unambiguous and unconditional, the discretion of the Court
21 O.S.No.1916/2013
should not be exercised to deny the valuable right of the
defendant to contest the claim. But in the present case as
discussed above, the defendant made clear and unambiguous
admissions in their written statement. Hence, the above said
ruling is not applicable to the facts of this case.