Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.39 seconds)
First Rand Services Private Limited vs Pantheon Infrastructure Private ... on 5 January, 2022 cites

K.R. Kesavan vs The South Indian Bank Ltd. on 23 March, 1949

"8. It is always undesirable, and indeed impossible, to lay down hard and fast rules in matters that affect discretion. But it is necessary to understand the reason for a special procedure of this kind in order that the discretion may be properly exercised. The object is explained in Kesavan v. South Indian Bank Ltd. (ILR 1950 Mad 251), and is examined in greater detail in Sundaram Chettiar v. Valli Ammal (1935 ILR 58 Mad 116), to which we have just referred. Taken by and large, the object is to see that the defendant does not unnecessarily prolong the litigation and prevent the plaintiff from obtaining an early decree by raising untenable and frivolous defences in a class of cases where speedy decisions are desirable in the interests of trade and commerce. In general, therefore, the test is to see whether the defence raises a real issue and not a sham one, in the sense that, if the facts alleged by the defendant are established, there would be a good, or even a plausible, defence on those facts.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

G. Sundaram Chettiar vs P.A. Valli Ammal on 30 July, 1934

"8. It is always undesirable, and indeed impossible, to lay down hard and fast rules in matters that affect discretion. But it is necessary to understand the reason for a special procedure of this kind in order that the discretion may be properly exercised. The object is explained in Kesavan v. South Indian Bank Ltd. (ILR 1950 Mad 251), and is examined in greater detail in Sundaram Chettiar v. Valli Ammal (1935 ILR 58 Mad 116), to which we have just referred. Taken by and large, the object is to see that the defendant does not unnecessarily prolong the litigation and prevent the plaintiff from obtaining an early decree by raising untenable and frivolous defences in a class of cases where speedy decisions are desirable in the interests of trade and commerce. In general, therefore, the test is to see whether the defence raises a real issue and not a sham one, in the sense that, if the facts alleged by the defendant are established, there would be a good, or even a plausible, defence on those facts.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 33 - Full Document

Idbi Trusteeship Services Ltd vs Hubtown Ltd on 15 November, 2016

34. I find substance in the submission of Mr. Engineer. If the contention on behalf of the defendant that the defendant is entitled to an unconditional leave to defend the suit since the defendant has raised a counterclaim is accepted, the very object of providing summary procedure under Order XXXVII of the Code would be rendered otiose. It is one thing to contend that, while seeking leave to defend the suit, the defendant has raised a counterclaim which raises a substantive defence or at any rate triable issues. It is a completely different thing to assert that since the defendant has raised a counterclaim, irrespective of the nature and quality of the defence and/or counterclaim, the defendant is entitled to an unconditional leave to defend the suit. It all turns upon the quality of the defence raised by the defendant. The tests enunciated by a catena of decisions and 26/31 SJ13-2021INCOMSS2-21.DOC reformulated in the case of Hubtown (supra) are required to be applied even in a case where the defendant raises a counterclaim. An unconditional leave cannot be granted on the sole premise that the defendant has raised a counterclaim.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 430 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Sicom Ltd. vs Prashant S. Tanna And Ors. on 4 March, 2004

38. At the hearing of the summons for judgment, where the Court finds that a part of claim deserves to be decreed and leave to defend is required to be granted in respect of rest of the claim, it is open to the Court to pass a decree for a part of the claim and grant unconditional or conditional leave to defend the suit in respect of the rest of the claim. A profitable reference, in 28/31 SJ13-2021INCOMSS2-21.DOC this context, can be made to a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of SICOM Ltd. vs. Prashant S. Tanna and others,7 wherein the legal position was summarized, inter alia, as under:
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 16 - S J Vazifdar - Full Document
1   2 Next