Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (2.18 seconds)Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr vs Farida Khatoon & Anr on 13 April, 2005
18. As has already been laid down in a previous decision of this Court in
FAO (OS) 511/2007, procedural laws are meant to further the ends of
justice; these exist to regulate the adjudication of substantial rights. Order
XXII Rule 10 CPC is an enabling provision and has to be construed liberally.
While the power granted to the Court in granting substitution of party is
discretionary, the rule is that on prima facie satisfaction on the entitlement of
the applicant, the Court should allow the application. It is not for the Court to
FAO(OS) 116/2015 Page 9
get into the merits of the application and adjudicate finally at this stage;
thereby foreclosing the opportunity of an interested party from asserting its
rights which it could have done otherwise during trial.
The Limitation Act, 1963
Yapi Kredi Bank (Deutschland) Ag vs Mr. Ashok. K. Chauhan And Ors. on 17 January, 2013
6. On 17.01.2013, the Division Bench allowed FAO (OS) 511/2007
(in the decision reported as Yapi Kredi Bank (Deutschland) AG v Mr.
Ashok. K. Chauhan & Ors (2013) ILR 2 Delhi 841). The question
considered by the Division Bench was whether amalgamation of a
company (which institutes a suit, that is pending) with another, results in
the corporate death and consequent abatement of the suit, or is the
transferee company entitled to prosecute the suit as a successor, in terms
of provisions of Order XXII Rule 10 CPC. The Court held that while the
opinion of the learned Single Judge- that amalgamation of a company
with another results in its corporate death, could not be faulted with, that
was not the end of the issue. "Corporate death" in the event of final
winding up or amalgamation, said the Court is a reality, however, that
alone could not afford an answer to what happens to a litigation to which
the amalgamating company is a party. The Court observed that during
winding up of a company, its affairs have to be concluded which includes
settlement of claims against the company to the satisfaction of its
creditors. In this sense "death" as in the case of an individual, which is
instant, could be distinguished from that of "corporate death" of a
company.
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 121 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bhagwan Dass Chopra vs United Bank Of India & Ors on 17 November, 1987
17. Learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon Amit Kumar Shaw
v. Farida Khatoon (2005) 11 SCC 403, Bhagwan Dass Chopra v. United
Bank of India (1987) Supp SCC 536 and Jawaharlal v. Saraswatibai Babulal
Joshi and Ors. AIR 1987 Bom 276 to assert the contention that only a prima
facie inquiry and not a detailed one is required to allow a substitution
application under Order XXII Rule 10.
Article 120 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1