Legal Reference Library

The Supreme Court in IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. Vs. Hubtown Ltd, has restated the principles governing the grant of leave to defend a Summary suit as per amended Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A Bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice RF Nariman said the principles stated in paragraph 8 of Mechelec Engineers & Manufacturers v. Basic Equipment Corporation will now stand superseded, post amendment of Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in view of a four-judge bench decision in Milkhiram (India) (P) Ltd. v. Chamanlal Bros. The court observed as follows: If the defendant satisfies the court that he has a substantial defence, that is, a defence that is likely to succeed, the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign judgment, and the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend the suit; If the defendant raises triable issues indicating that he has a fair or reasonable defence, although not a positively good def...

An order of attachment before judgment passed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code will not survive the dismissal of a suit and it ends when the suit is dismissed after trial. Contents 1 (i) Whether an order of attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”, for short) made in a suit for recovery of money will survive the dismissal of the suit on merits? 2 (ii) If the appellate court reverses the decree of the trial court and allows the suit claim, will it result in an automatic revival of the order of attachment before judgment? 3 (iii) Whether the ratio in the decision by Full Bench in Thampi Muhammad Abdul Kadir v. Padmanabha Pillai Parameswaran Pillai (1952 KLT 264) holds good in view of the change in the precedential law and insertion of Order XXXVIII Rule 11A to the Code? 3.1 “11A. Provisions applicable to attachment.- 3.2 “57. Determination of attachment.- 3.3 Arumuhom Ammal v. Nayanar Panicker (1962 KLT 264) 3.4...

The Supreme Court M.K. Indrajeet Sinhji Cotton Pvt Ltd. Vs. Narmada Cotto Coop. Spg. Mills Ld. & Ors has held that Registrar of Cooperative Societies has no jurisdiction to decide whether the suit is tenable for want of notice or not. Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices S.A. Bobde and Amitava Roy observed that that a question whether a suit is tenable under Section 167 of the Co-operative Societies Act for want of notice under the said provision is a question within the exclusive competence of a Civil Court. A company was refused permission to continue the suit filed by it before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on the ground that the suit is not tenable because notice of its institution required by Section 167 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. Though the Single Bench of the High Court quashed the order of Registrar, the Division Bench on appeal restored that order. The company approached Apex Court. The court observed th...

In INDIAN MACHINERY COMPANY Vs M/S. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that only question that has arisen in this appeal is whether a second complaint to the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is maintainable when the first complaint was dismissed for default or non- prosecution. The National Commission has taken the view in the impugned order that the second complaint would not be maintainable. The Hon'ble court decided that there is no provision parallel to the provision contained in Order 9 Rule 9(1) CPC which contains a prohibition that if a suit is dismissed in default of the plaintiff under Order 9 Rule 8, a second suit on the same cause of action would not lie. That being so, the rule of prohibition contained in Order 9 Rule 9(1) CPC cannot be extended to the proceedings before the District Forum or the State Commission. The fact that the case was not decided on merits and was dismissed in default of non-appear...

Sharadamma vs Mohammed Pyrejan(D) Tr.Lrs.& Anr on 23 September, 2015 Author: …………………………J. Bench: Kurian Joseph, Arun Mishra                                                                               Reportable                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION                         CIVIL APPEAL NO.7889  OF 2015                 (Arising out of S.L.P. [C] No.36889 of 2013) Sharadamma                              … Appellant ...

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1566  of  1991 PETITIONER: ADCON ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: DAULAT AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/09/2001 BENCH: Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri & S.N. Phukan The question then arises as to what is meant by suit for land. This expression has been interpreted by different High Courts as well as the Federal Court. In His Highness Shrimant Maharaj Yashvantrav Holkar of Indore Vs. Dada Bhai Cursetji Ashburner [1890 (14) I.L.R. Bombay 353] a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that a suit for specific performance would not fall within the meaning of that expression. There the suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement to mortgage certain immovable property. The agreement was made in Bombay between the parties on January 8, 1883. The Divisional Court held, it had jurisdiction and granted decree. On appeal a Division Bench referred to an earlier judgment of that court in Yenkoba Balset Kasar Vs. Rambhaji (9 Bombay...

1) UPC-600 (Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, Sixth Edition) published by International Chambers of Commerce 2) Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557, Popat Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510 3) Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Asst. Charity Commissioner, (2004) 3 SCC 137 4) R.D. Harbottle (Mercantile) Ltd. v. National Westminster Bank, (1977) 3 WLR 752 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3103 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.9689 of 2014) M/S. MILLENIUM WIRES (P) LTD. ...APPELLANT  :versus: THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS “Banks must be allowed to honour their guarantees without interference except in clear cases of notice of fraud to the bank. The merchants take risk which are not to be imposed on the banks. Such interference will deter trust in international commerce.” (1) The Court must be slow in granting an order...