Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.32 seconds)
Heirs Of Deceased Pratapkumar ... vs Paresh Manilal Soni on 7 October, 2024 cites

Sudin Dilip Talaulikar vs Polycap Wires Pvt Ltd on 15 July, 2019

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court, again, in the case of Sudin Dilip Talaulikar v. Polycap Wires Private Limited & Ors., reported in (2019) 7 Supreme Court Cases 577, has held that the ultimate objective of a summary Suit is expeditious disposal of commercial disputes and, when the defence discloses facts of prima facie fair and reasonable defence, unconditional leave has to be granted and it relates to the subjective satisfaction of the Court on the basis of the material that may be placed before it and when the Court is satisfied that the defence is plausible or probable and is not sham or moonshine, but still it has some doubt over the defence, then conditional leave may be granted to the Defendant. It was further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid Judgment that in case of unconditional leave, subjective satisfaction of Court is Page 8 of 17 Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Oct 25 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 26 22:04:29 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1466/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2024 undefined involved, whereas in conditional leave, element of discretion vests with the Court. This discretion is not absolute, but is required to be exercised judiciously, tempered with what is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case by maintaining delicate balance between the respective rights and contentions by not passing an order which may ultimately impede speedy resolution of dispute.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 18 - N Sinha - Full Document

B.L. Kashyap And Sons Ltd. vs M/S Jms Steels And Power Corporation on 18 January, 2022

14. At this stage, I may refer to and rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd. vs. JMS Steels & Power Corp., Civil Appeal No.379 of 2022, wherein while clarifying the law on leave to defend, it is held that even if there remains a reasonable doubt about the probability of defence, sterner or higher conditions could be imposed while granting leave to defend but, denying the leave would be ordinarily countenanced only in such cases where the defendant fails to show any genuine triable issue and the Court finds the defence to be frivolous or vexatious. In the said case, it has been observed as under;
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 50 - D Maheshwari - Full Document

Mechelec Engineers And Manufacturers vs M/S. Basic Equipment Corporation on 1 November, 1976

17. It is at once clear that even though in the case of IDBI Trusteeship, this Court has observed that the principles stated in paragraph 8 of Mechelec Engineers' case shall stand superseded in the wake of amendment of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII but, on the core theme, the principles remain the same that grant of leave to defend (with or without conditions) is the ordinary rule; and denial of leave to defend is an exception. Putting it in other words, generally, the prayer for leave to defend is to be denied in such cases where the defendant has practically no defence and is unable to give out even a semblance of triable issues before the Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 581 - M H Beg - Full Document

Milkhiram (India) Private Ltd. And Ors. vs Chamanlal Bros. on 23 April, 1965

"17. Accordingly, the principles stated in para 8 of Mechelec case [Mechelec Engineers & Manufacturers v. Basic Equipment Corpn., (1976) 4 SCC 687] will now stand superseded, given the amendment of Order 37 Rule 3 and the binding decision of four Judges in Milkhiram case [Milkhiram (India) (P) Ltd. v. Chamanlal Bros., AIR 1965 SC 1698 : (1966) 68 Bom LR 36] , as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 206 - J R Mudholkar - Full Document
1