Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (3.82 seconds)Sify Ltd vs First Flight Couriers Ltd on 8 January, 2008
10. According to me, the learned Master considered the pleas raised by the respondent/defendant in A.No.7446 of 2010, and by relying upon the judgment reported in (2008) 4 S.C.C. 246 in the case of (SIFY Ltd., Vs. First Flight Couriers Ltd.,), he was of the opinion that the respondent has substantial defence, which is neither frivolous nor vexatious and granted unconditional leave. As per Order XXXVII Rule 5 CPC, leave to defend the suit shall not be refused, unless, the Court is satisfied that the facts disclosed by the defendant do not indicate that he has substantial defence to raise, or, that the defence intended to be put up by the defendant is frivolous or vexatious.
M/S. Sunil Enterorises & Anr vs Sbi Commercial & International Bank Ltd on 30 April, 1998
In the judgment reported in (1998) 5 S.C.C. 354 in the case of (Sunil Enterprises and another Vs. SBI Commercial & International Bank Ltd.,) (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to its intra Court judgments, viz., the judgments reported in I) A.I.R. (1958) S.C. 321 in the case of (Santosh Kumar Vs. Bhai Mool Singh) II) A.I.R. (1965) S.C. 1698 in the case of (Milkhiram (India) Pvt., Ltd Vs. Chamanlal Bros) and III)(1976) 4 S.C.C. 687 in the case of (Mechelec Engineers and Manufacturers Vs. Basic Equipment Corp.), wherein, a law has been laid down under what circumstances leave can be granted, summarized the law as follows:-
Mechelec Engineers And Manufacturers vs M/S. Basic Equipment Corporation on 1 November, 1976
In the judgment reported in (1998) 5 S.C.C. 354 in the case of (Sunil Enterprises and another Vs. SBI Commercial & International Bank Ltd.,) (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to its intra Court judgments, viz., the judgments reported in I) A.I.R. (1958) S.C. 321 in the case of (Santosh Kumar Vs. Bhai Mool Singh) II) A.I.R. (1965) S.C. 1698 in the case of (Milkhiram (India) Pvt., Ltd Vs. Chamanlal Bros) and III)(1976) 4 S.C.C. 687 in the case of (Mechelec Engineers and Manufacturers Vs. Basic Equipment Corp.), wherein, a law has been laid down under what circumstances leave can be granted, summarized the law as follows:-
Santosh Kumar vs Bhai Mool Singh on 5 February, 1958
In the judgment reported in (1998) 5 S.C.C. 354 in the case of (Sunil Enterprises and another Vs. SBI Commercial & International Bank Ltd.,) (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to its intra Court judgments, viz., the judgments reported in I) A.I.R. (1958) S.C. 321 in the case of (Santosh Kumar Vs. Bhai Mool Singh) II) A.I.R. (1965) S.C. 1698 in the case of (Milkhiram (India) Pvt., Ltd Vs. Chamanlal Bros) and III)(1976) 4 S.C.C. 687 in the case of (Mechelec Engineers and Manufacturers Vs. Basic Equipment Corp.), wherein, a law has been laid down under what circumstances leave can be granted, summarized the law as follows:-
Southern Sales & Services & Ors vs Sauermilch Design & Handels Gmbh on 3 October, 2008
ii) (2008) 6 C.T.C. 660 (SC) in the case of (Southern Sales & Services and others Vs. Sauermilch Design & Handles Gmbh).
Milkhiram (India) Private Ltd. And Ors. vs Chamanlal Bros. on 23 April, 1965
In the judgment reported in (1998) 5 S.C.C. 354 in the case of (Sunil Enterprises and another Vs. SBI Commercial & International Bank Ltd.,) (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to its intra Court judgments, viz., the judgments reported in I) A.I.R. (1958) S.C. 321 in the case of (Santosh Kumar Vs. Bhai Mool Singh) II) A.I.R. (1965) S.C. 1698 in the case of (Milkhiram (India) Pvt., Ltd Vs. Chamanlal Bros) and III)(1976) 4 S.C.C. 687 in the case of (Mechelec Engineers and Manufacturers Vs. Basic Equipment Corp.), wherein, a law has been laid down under what circumstances leave can be granted, summarized the law as follows:-
1