Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)
M.Kamaraj vs T.G.Praveen Kumar on 30 March, 2023 cites

Idbi Trusteeship Services Ltd vs Hubtown Ltd on 15 November, 2016

14. With regard to the question of leave to defend, as noticed, the court below has observed that the respondent / defendant is entitled to such leave because triable issues were arising out of the defence sought to be taken by the petitioners. The principles of law for grant or refusal of leave to defend has been well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited vs. Hubtown Limited, (2017) 1 SCC 568. The relevant portion of the judgement are as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 430 - R F Nariman - Full Document

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

“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para 8 of Mechelec case [Mechelec Engineers & Manufacturers v. Basic Equipment Corpn., (1976) 4 SCC 687] will now stand superseded,given the amendment of Order 37 Rule 3 and the binding decision of four Judges in Milkhiram case [Milkhiram (India) (P) Ltd.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 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para 8 of Mechelec case [Mechelec Engineers & Manufacturers v. Basic Equipment Corpn., (1976) 4 SCC 687] will now stand superseded,given the amendment of Order 37 Rule 3 and the binding decision of four Judges in Milkhiram case [Milkhiram (India) (P) Ltd.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

Palaniappa Chettiar vs S.A. Chidambaram Chettiar on 30 July, 1964

12. Lastly, the learned counsel for the respndent submits that the claim of Rs.9,01,000/- by the petitioners is false and incorrect. As far as the hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- and their additional works of Rs.4,00,000/-, there is no existing liability on the part of the respondent. Regarding the liability of purchase of articles at Rs.3,01,000/- the petitioners had taken away articles worth Rs.1,85,000/- due to poor maintenance of tenanted premises, thereby incurred huge repair works at cost of Rs.40,000/- , intotal Rs.2,25,000/- which sum is to be deducted from the petitioners claim of Rs.3,01,000/- . The respondent already paid the rental advance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- on 23.04.2019 itself to the petitioners, who admitted the same. Therefore, the total claim of Rs.9,01,000/- made by the 8/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2389 of 2021 petitioners is against the respondent, hence the same is vexatious, thereby pleaded to dismiss the present revision. The learned counsel has relied on the Order of this Court [Palaniappa Chettiar Vs. S.A.Chidambaram Chettiar] reported in AIR 1965 Mad 218 in support of his contention.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1