Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.22 seconds)The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
Jagatjit Industries Ltd. vs Sh. Rajiv Gupta on 25 September, 1980
I hold that defendant is entitled to leave to
defend on this aspect only especially keeping in
view the observations of their Lordship in the
case of Jagatjit Industries Limited Vs. Rajiv
Gupta reported in 18 (1980) DLT 434 as made
in para 9 which reads as under:
Shri Hans Raj vs Shri Lakhi Ram on 17 September, 2004
9. As already discussed, the plaintiff has not
supplied the copies of the documents relied upon
by them mere because the originals are with the
defendant, as pleaded in the reply to the leave to
defend application/affidavit. This admission of
non supply of the documents further goes
against the plaintiff in term of observations of
their Lordship in the case of Hans Raj Vs.
Lakhi Ram reported in 114 (2004) DLT 264
wherein their Lordship were of the view that
"where only copy of the summons without
affixing the copy of plaint and annexures thereto
were affixed by the process server, the service of
11
summons is insufficient and it is sufficient
circumstance to set aside a decree passed under
Order 37 CPC". Here, the plaintiff despite
objection is adamant not to supply the
documents to the defendant which entitled him
to leave to defend the suit.
Bush Boake Allen (India) Ltd. vs Mehtajee And Company And Ors. on 25 August, 2005
11. The submissions as made by the Learned
counsel for the defendant in this context are
13
matter of triable issue who has also challenged
the admissibility of the agreement which can
only be decided during evidence by the parties. I
am not able to accept the submissions by the Ld.
counsel for plaintiff that mere on technical
grounds whereas the defendant has not put
forward a good defence on merits, this suit
cannot be thrown out of the ambit of order 37
CPC and need to be decreed. The reference
made to the case of Bush Boake Allen (India)
Limited Vs. Mehtajee and Company & Ors
reported in II (2006) BC 427 is of no avail to the
plaintiff as the technical objections too are to be
taken into consideration so as to see whether
defendant has a good defence which is prima
facie not a moonshine or illusory or ex facie
unbelievable.