Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.23 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Immani Appa Rao And Others vs Gollapalli Ramalingamurthi And Ors on 22 September, 1961
Moreover, as has been held by the Supreme Court in the above case, in such
a case there can be no question of estoppel and the paramount consideration
of public interest requires that the plea be allowed to be raised and
tried.”
xxx
40.2 In my view, the Plaintiff is also not correct when they state/submit
that the judgment supports the Plaintiff in contending that the Defendant
had not “brought on record a shred of material to show how the facts of the
present dispute would mandate lifting of the corporate veil...” Even if it
is assumed that the corporate veil is not to be lifted or Vinca, Amazia and
Rubix are to be treated as one Company, as has been mentioned hereinabove,
Vinca interposed as the holding Company of Amazia and Rubix only for the
purpose of structuring FMO's FDI investment into Amazia and Rubix, through
Vinca as the nominal recipient. The SSA and the annexed Debenture Trust
Deed, specifically provided that the FDI amount to be received by Vinca
from FMO against issuance of CCDs and equity shares by Vinca, was not to be
retained by Vinca or used by Vinca in its own projects. The SSA and Trust
Deed in fact expressly stipulated that the FDI amount received by Vinca
from FMO, was to be immediately passed on by Vinca to Amazia and Rubix,
against issuance by them of OPCDs.
Santosh Kumar vs Bhai Mool Singh on 5 February, 1958
“Learned counsel relied upon a decision of this court in Santosh
Kumar v. Bhai Mool Singh [ (1958) SCR 1211] and particularly upon a passage
at p. 1216. That was a case in which the Court of Commercial Subordinate
Judge, Delhi, had held that the defence raised a triable issue but that
defence was vague and was not bona fide because the defendant had produced
no evidence to prove his assertion. For these reasons the court granted
leave to defend the suit on the condition of the defendant giving security
for the entire claim in the suit and costs thereon. This court held that
the test is to see whether the defence raises a real issue and not a sham
one, in the sense that, if the facts alleged by the defendant are
established, there would be a good, or even a plausible defence on those
facts. If the court is satisfied about that, leave must be given
unconditionally. This Court further held that the trial court was wrong in
imposing a condition about giving security on the ground that documentary
evidence had not been adduced by the defendant. This Court pointed out that
the stage of proof can only arise after leave to defend has been granted
and that the omission to adduce documentary evidence would not justify the
inference the defence sought to be raised was vague and not bona fide.
While dealing with the matter Bose, J., who spoke for the Court observed
(p. 1216):
Pacific Refractories Ltd. vs Stein Heurtey India Projects Pvt. Ltd. on 10 February, 2006
In this
connection we may refer to the following observations of Devlin, L.J.
in Fieldrank Ltd. v. Stein [ (1961) 3 AELR 681 at pp 682-3] :
“The broad principle, which is founded on Jacob v.Booth's Distillery Co. is
summarised on p. 266 of the Annual Practice (1962 Edn.) in the following
terms:
The Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Shri Suresh Chandra Jaipuria And Anr. on 3 November, 1976
14. We may hasten to add that Mechelec’s case has since been followed in
a series of judgments of this court – Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Suresh
Chandra Jaipuria, (1976) 4 SCC 719 at para 11; Sunil Enterprises v. SBI
Commercial & International Bank Ltd., (1998) 5 SCC 354 at para 4; State
Bank of Saurashtra v. Ashit Shipping Services (P) Ltd., (2002) 4 SCC 736 at
para 10; Uma Shankar Kamal Narain v. M.D. Overseas Ltd., (2007) 4 SCC 133
at paras 8 and 9; SIFY Ltd. v. First Flight Couriers Ltd., (2008) 4 SCC 246
at para 10; Wada Arun Asbestos (P) Ltd. v. Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage
Board, (2009) 2 SCC 432 at para 19; R. Saravana Prabhu v. Videocon Leasing
& Industrial Finance Ltd., (2013) 14 SCC 606 at para 4; and State Bank of
Hyderabad v. Rabo Bank, (2015) 10 SCC 521 at para 16.
M/S. Sunil Enterorises & Anr vs Sbi Commercial & International Bank Ltd on 30 April, 1998
14. We may hasten to add that Mechelec’s case has since been followed in
a series of judgments of this court – Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Suresh
Chandra Jaipuria, (1976) 4 SCC 719 at para 11; Sunil Enterprises v. SBI
Commercial & International Bank Ltd., (1998) 5 SCC 354 at para 4; State
Bank of Saurashtra v. Ashit Shipping Services (P) Ltd., (2002) 4 SCC 736 at
para 10; Uma Shankar Kamal Narain v. M.D. Overseas Ltd., (2007) 4 SCC 133
at paras 8 and 9; SIFY Ltd. v. First Flight Couriers Ltd., (2008) 4 SCC 246
at para 10; Wada Arun Asbestos (P) Ltd. v. Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage
Board, (2009) 2 SCC 432 at para 19; R. Saravana Prabhu v. Videocon Leasing
& Industrial Finance Ltd., (2013) 14 SCC 606 at para 4; and State Bank of
Hyderabad v. Rabo Bank, (2015) 10 SCC 521 at para 16.
State Bank Of Saurashtra vs M/S Ashit Shipping Services P. Ltd. & Anr on 12 April, 2002
14. We may hasten to add that Mechelec’s case has since been followed in
a series of judgments of this court – Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Suresh
Chandra Jaipuria, (1976) 4 SCC 719 at para 11; Sunil Enterprises v. SBI
Commercial & International Bank Ltd., (1998) 5 SCC 354 at para 4; State
Bank of Saurashtra v. Ashit Shipping Services (P) Ltd., (2002) 4 SCC 736 at
para 10; Uma Shankar Kamal Narain v. M.D. Overseas Ltd., (2007) 4 SCC 133
at paras 8 and 9; SIFY Ltd. v. First Flight Couriers Ltd., (2008) 4 SCC 246
at para 10; Wada Arun Asbestos (P) Ltd. v. Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage
Board, (2009) 2 SCC 432 at para 19; R. Saravana Prabhu v. Videocon Leasing
& Industrial Finance Ltd., (2013) 14 SCC 606 at para 4; and State Bank of
Hyderabad v. Rabo Bank, (2015) 10 SCC 521 at para 16.
M/S. Uma Shankar Kamal Narain & Anr vs M/S. M.D. Overseas Ltd on 14 March, 2007
14. We may hasten to add that Mechelec’s case has since been followed in
a series of judgments of this court – Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Suresh
Chandra Jaipuria, (1976) 4 SCC 719 at para 11; Sunil Enterprises v. SBI
Commercial & International Bank Ltd., (1998) 5 SCC 354 at para 4; State
Bank of Saurashtra v. Ashit Shipping Services (P) Ltd., (2002) 4 SCC 736 at
para 10; Uma Shankar Kamal Narain v. M.D. Overseas Ltd., (2007) 4 SCC 133
at paras 8 and 9; SIFY Ltd. v. First Flight Couriers Ltd., (2008) 4 SCC 246
at para 10; Wada Arun Asbestos (P) Ltd. v. Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage
Board, (2009) 2 SCC 432 at para 19; R. Saravana Prabhu v. Videocon Leasing
& Industrial Finance Ltd., (2013) 14 SCC 606 at para 4; and State Bank of
Hyderabad v. Rabo Bank, (2015) 10 SCC 521 at para 16.
Sify Ltd vs First Flight Couriers Ltd on 8 January, 2008
14. We may hasten to add that Mechelec’s case has since been followed in
a series of judgments of this court – Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Suresh
Chandra Jaipuria, (1976) 4 SCC 719 at para 11; Sunil Enterprises v. SBI
Commercial & International Bank Ltd., (1998) 5 SCC 354 at para 4; State
Bank of Saurashtra v. Ashit Shipping Services (P) Ltd., (2002) 4 SCC 736 at
para 10; Uma Shankar Kamal Narain v. M.D. Overseas Ltd., (2007) 4 SCC 133
at paras 8 and 9; SIFY Ltd. v. First Flight Couriers Ltd., (2008) 4 SCC 246
at para 10; Wada Arun Asbestos (P) Ltd. v. Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage
Board, (2009) 2 SCC 432 at para 19; R. Saravana Prabhu v. Videocon Leasing
& Industrial Finance Ltd., (2013) 14 SCC 606 at para 4; and State Bank of
Hyderabad v. Rabo Bank, (2015) 10 SCC 521 at para 16.