Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.68 seconds)
M/S G.D. Goenka Private Limited vs Standard Chartered Bank on 22 August, 2014 cites

Babbar Sewing Machine Co vs Trilok Nath Mahajan on 7 August, 1978

12. In the present context, we do not think this question is required to be decided in this writ petition. We are inclined to agree with the second issue recorded by the DRT and DRAT in the impugned orders. Both of them have held that the conduct of the respondent bank is not such that an order under Order XI, Rule 21 or similar order should be passed. The said order entails dismissal of the claim/suit or striking out of the defence, is a stringent and penal provision having a grave consequence on the litigation inter-se parties. An order of dismissal of a suit or striking out of the defence ought not to be passed unless the Court/Tribunal is satisfied that the party concerned is wilfully or deliberately withholding information by refusing to answer the interrogatories or withholding document sought to be discovered. There should be obstinacy or contumacy on the part of the said party or wilful attempt to disregard the order of the Court (Babbar Sewing Machine Co vs. Trilok, A 1978 SC 1436; Shawney Brothers vs. Hark Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation (2001) 3 Punj LR 61 (64) (Del) : 2001 (93) DLT 694).
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 68 - A P Sen - Full Document

Chinnappan vs Ramachandran on 20 July, 1988

8. Keeping in view the aforesaid affidavit and the submission made, DRT by order dated 18.06.2013 held that Order XI, Rule 12 of the Code was not applicable and therefore the application under Order XI, Rule 21 would not be maintainable. The earlier directions in order dated 14.03.2011 issued were under Order XI, Rule 14 of the Code. This finding has been affirmed by DRAT. There is considerable authority for the proposition that directions issued under Order XI, Rule 14 of the Code cannot and should not be made subject matter of an Order XI, Rule 21 of the Code. (See Chinnappan Vs. Ramachandran (AIR 1989 Mad 314) and judgments quoted therein and Gur Prasad Shyam Babu v. State W.P.(C) 5341/2014 Page 6 of 10 Bank of India, (AIR 1994 All 151)
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

M/S. Gur Prasad Shyam Babu And Others vs State Bank Of India And Another on 5 July, 1993

8. Keeping in view the aforesaid affidavit and the submission made, DRT by order dated 18.06.2013 held that Order XI, Rule 12 of the Code was not applicable and therefore the application under Order XI, Rule 21 would not be maintainable. The earlier directions in order dated 14.03.2011 issued were under Order XI, Rule 14 of the Code. This finding has been affirmed by DRAT. There is considerable authority for the proposition that directions issued under Order XI, Rule 14 of the Code cannot and should not be made subject matter of an Order XI, Rule 21 of the Code. (See Chinnappan Vs. Ramachandran (AIR 1989 Mad 314) and judgments quoted therein and Gur Prasad Shyam Babu v. State W.P.(C) 5341/2014 Page 6 of 10 Bank of India, (AIR 1994 All 151)
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

M/S Sawhney Brothers vs Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking ... on 30 July, 2001

12. In the present context, we do not think this question is required to be decided in this writ petition. We are inclined to agree with the second issue recorded by the DRT and DRAT in the impugned orders. Both of them have held that the conduct of the respondent bank is not such that an order under Order XI, Rule 21 or similar order should be passed. The said order entails dismissal of the claim/suit or striking out of the defence, is a stringent and penal provision having a grave consequence on the litigation inter-se parties. An order of dismissal of a suit or striking out of the defence ought not to be passed unless the Court/Tribunal is satisfied that the party concerned is wilfully or deliberately withholding information by refusing to answer the interrogatories or withholding document sought to be discovered. There should be obstinacy or contumacy on the part of the said party or wilful attempt to disregard the order of the Court (Babbar Sewing Machine Co vs. Trilok, A 1978 SC 1436; Shawney Brothers vs. Hark Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation (2001) 3 Punj LR 61 (64) (Del) : 2001 (93) DLT 694).
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - J D Kapoor - Full Document
1