Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999
Bank Of Baroda vs Manubhai Jethabhai Patel & Others on 5 May, 1999
In the case of Bank of Baroda Vs. Manubhai Jethabhai Patel
2000(1) Bom. C.R. 325 the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that
if the practice and procedure of a Court which passed the judgment was
followed, the judgment cannot be treated as one not on merits. In that case
Rule 14 of the Supreme Court of England Rules was complied with. The writ
of summons was issued, served, acknowledged and the notice of intention to
defend was given by the defendant. The defendant filed his defence through
his solicitor. Leave to defend was refused. Thereafter the decree holder
applied for judgment under the summary procedure. The solicitors of the
defendant were given notice. The inter parte hearing took place. The
judgment on merits was pronounced. The judgment debtor/defendant did
not take any steps to set aside the ex parte judgment by preferring an appeal.
The decree holder had complied with the requirement of Order 14 Rule 2 of
the Supreme Court of England Rules. It was held that the judgment was
passed after compliance of the rules of the reciprocating country and hence it
::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2015 23:58:22 :::
(14) N 131/14
cannot be held that the judgment was not on merits and that the mere
absence of the defendant could not prevent a judgment to be given from
being the one on merits because then there would be every incentive for the
defendant to be absent when the matter came up for disposal in the country
where the suit was filed and then contend that the judgment was not on
merits.
M/S. International Woolen Mills vs M/S. Standard Wool (U.K.) Limited on 25 April, 2001
In the case of International Woollen Mills Vs. Standard Wool
(U.K.) Ltd. (2001) 5 SCC 265 the Supreme Court considered also what
would be on merits. In paras 17 to 32 of the judgment considering various
earlier cases, the decision of which it upheld, it accepted that the analogy to
consider the merits is whether the Court had gone through the case made
out by the plaintiff and taken the evidence of the witnesses put up by the
plaintiff or whether the decree was passed without going into the merits and
without taking evidence by the foreign Courts.
Middle East Bank Ltd. vs Rajendra Singh Sethia on 17 September, 1990
The Supreme Court accepted
the holding in the case of Middle East Bank Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh Sethia
AIR 1991 Cal 335 that only if the Court had not gone through and
considered the case of the plaintiff and taken the evidence of the witness, the
judgment or decree would not be on merits.
Chintamoni Padhan And Ors. vs Paika Samal And Ors. on 17 February, 1956
The Supreme Court dissented from the ruling in the case of
Chintamani Chintamoni Padhan Vs. Paika Samal AIR 1956 Ori 136 : ILR
1956 Cut 174 that only after a full trial, pleadings, presentation of evidence
and arguments by both sides can a judgment be considered a judgment on
merits. The Supreme Court held that it was possible even if the defendant
had not entered evidence that the plaintiff may prove its case through oral
and documentary evidence and if that was considered the decree would be a
decree on merits.
D.T. Keymer vs P. Viswanatham Reddi on 14 November, 1916
The Court considered the earliest case of the Privy Council in D. T.
Keymer Vs. P. Visvanathan Reddi AIR 1916 Privy Council 121 in which
upon the defendant having omitted to answer the interrogatories of the
plaintiff, the defence came to be struck off and the judgment was entered for
the plaintiff which was held not to be on merits since none of the matters
raised by the defendant were considered and the subject of adjudication and
the suit was treated as though not defended and the judgment was given on
that footing.
Srm Exploration Pvt. Ltd. vs N & S & N Consultants S.R.O. on 21 March, 2012
39. The case of SRM Exploration Pvt. Ltd. Vs. N & S & N
Consultants S.R.O. 2012 (129) DRJ 113 (DB) considered the provisions of
FEMA alongside FERA and held that the prohibition in Section 3 of FEMA
did not prevent legal proceedings being brought in India for recovery of
sums due and that the legislative intent of the section was not to render such
provisions void. The Court considered that under Section 43(3) of FERA
::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2015 23:58:23 :::
(22) N 131/14
there was a prohibition enter to into a contract without the permission of the
Reserve Bank of India which was no longer in FEMA.