Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.41 seconds)
M/S Jayshree Entrade Private Limited vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 6 March, 2019 cites

State Bank Of Travancore vs M/S Kingston Computers(I) P.Ltd on 22 February, 2011

Therefore, with all due respect to the decision rendered in the case of State Bank of Travancore (supra), which was later in point of time, it appears that the ratio laid down in the case of United Bank of India (supra), which was passed by a co-ordinate Bench of same strength, was not placed before the Hon'ble Apex Court when the subsequent case of State Bank of Travancore (supra) was decided, as such, in the considered opinion of this Court, it would be in the interest of justice to follow the decision earlier decision on the point. Therefore, when the petitioner is agitating the cancellation of the contract awarded to it without serving notice of cancellation, the defect in verification, being a curable one cannot be a ground to dismiss the writ petition as not maintainable, moreso, when there is no dispute as regards the identity of the petitioner-in-person, who claims to be the Managing Page No.# 9/14 Director of the petitioner. Upon a conjoint reading of the provisions of Order XXIX, Rule 1 CPC and Order VI Rule 14 CPC, this Court is not inclined to dismiss this writ petition on the ground of defect of not annexing (i) the proof that the deponent swearing the affidavit in support of the writ petition was the petitioner Company's Managing Director, or (ii) Board's resolution, because being the Managing Director of the petitioner Company, otherwise having competence, could swear the affidavit in support of the writ petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 164 - Full Document

United Bank Of India vs Sh. Naresh Kumar And Ors on 18 September, 1996

Therefore, with all due respect to the decision rendered in the case of State Bank of Travancore (supra), which was later in point of time, it appears that the ratio laid down in the case of United Bank of India (supra), which was passed by a co-ordinate Bench of same strength, was not placed before the Hon'ble Apex Court when the subsequent case of State Bank of Travancore (supra) was decided, as such, in the considered opinion of this Court, it would be in the interest of justice to follow the decision earlier decision on the point. Therefore, when the petitioner is agitating the cancellation of the contract awarded to it without serving notice of cancellation, the defect in verification, being a curable one cannot be a ground to dismiss the writ petition as not maintainable, moreso, when there is no dispute as regards the identity of the petitioner-in-person, who claims to be the Managing Page No.# 9/14 Director of the petitioner. Upon a conjoint reading of the provisions of Order XXIX, Rule 1 CPC and Order VI Rule 14 CPC, this Court is not inclined to dismiss this writ petition on the ground of defect of not annexing (i) the proof that the deponent swearing the affidavit in support of the writ petition was the petitioner Company's Managing Director, or (ii) Board's resolution, because being the Managing Director of the petitioner Company, otherwise having competence, could swear the affidavit in support of the writ petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 697 - B N Kirpal - Full Document
1