Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.96 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Article 5 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 37 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Central Bank Of India vs Femme Pharma Ltd. And Ors. on 23 February, 1981
11. The next contention which was seriously argued and in support of which a number of judgments were cited is about the scope of Rule 227 of the High Court O.S. Rules. Counsel for defendants have pointed a large number of judgments starting with Central Bank of India v. Femme Pharma Ltd., . In that case, in Summons for Judgment, it was contended suit must be dismissed on failure to comply with requirement of Rule 227 of the High Court O.S. Rules 1980 corresponding to Rule 220(4) of the Rules 1957. The Court rejected the said contention on the ground that it had wider discretion after the original rule had been amended and at any rate Summons for Judgment has been taken out even before matter could be notified or placed on board for dismissal. Thereafter, there are observations made in para 4 that as Summons for Judgment has been taken out after much delay, unconditional leave to defend was granted. There is no reason for the said observation in the judgment which can be said to be ratio decidendi of the judgment. Even otherwise the issue before the Court was whether Rule 227 of O.S. Rules gave any discretion to the Court not to dismiss the suit if Summons for Judgment had not been applied for within the time set out. Even otherwise it can be said to be the ratio decidendi of the judgment, if it was directly in issue, the issue need to have been decided and there are reasons. To my mind none of the aforesaid tests are satisfied. The said view seems to have been followed by various learned Single Judges.
Maharashtra State Electricity Board, ... vs A.S. Joshi And Anr. on 8 June, 1990
Purported reference is made in that judgment to overcome another judgment by Vyas, J., in Bank of Maharashtra v. S.B. Joshi, in Summons for Judgment No. 731 of 1991 in Suit No. 2684 of 1990 who had taken a contrary view. According to the learned Single Judge in view of the view taken by the Division Bench the view of Vyas, J., is not good law. I am unable to agree with the learned Single Judge.
Milkhiram (India) Private Ltd. And Ors. vs Chamanlal Bros. on 23 April, 1965
In my opinion, the observations in Banque Indosuez if sought to be construed in the manner sought to be construed would run counter to the Division Bench decision referred to earlier in Randerian & Singh Pvt. Ltd. reproduced earlier though in Milkhiram (India) P. Ltd. (supra), considering Order 37 as it stood before its amendment the Apex Court has observed that it is left to the discretion of the Trial Judge. Therefore, what will have to be examined is whether contention of the plaintiffs that the defendants had agreed to pay additional interest and contention of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 that there is no provision for payment of compound interest with quarterly rests is provided for or not. Answer lies therein.
The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
Santosh Kumar vs Bhai Mool Singh on 5 February, 1958
The Apex Court referred to its earlier judgment in the case of Santoksh Kumar v. Bhai Mool Singh, . The Court had observed therein that in granting leave to defend, what the Court must find out is whether defence raised is real and not sham, in the sense that if facts alleged by the defendant are established, there would be a good or even plausible defence on those facts. If the Court is satisfied about that, leave must be granted unconditionally. In that case, the Court held that trial Court was wrong in imposing conditions about giving security on the ground that documentary evidence had not been adduced by the defendant. The Court held that stage of proof can only arise, after leave has been granted and omission to adduce documentary evidence would not justify inference. The defence sought to be raised was vague and not bona fide. Thereafter, the observation of Bose, J., were reproduced which read as under:
Mechelec Engineers And Manufacturers vs M/S. Basic Equipment Corporation on 1 November, 1976
Nowhere on reading or construction of the said Rule, can it be construed that if suit could be dismissed it must follow that the defendant, who may have no defence in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Machalec Engineering (supra) has a right of getting unconditional leave. In the ordinary course, I would have referred the matter to a larger Bench for decision in view of the conflicting decisions between Vyas, J., and other Single Judges. As pointed out earlier, however, the view taken by Nijjar, J., that the view has been affirmed by the Division Bench does not find support from that case.