DEFIANCE KNITTING INDUSTRIES PVT LTD Vs. JAY ARTS
LAWS(SC)-2006-8-52
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on August 30,2006

DEFIANCE KNITTING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
JAY ARTS Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

GREENGOLD TIMBER PRIVET LIMITED VS. SHIPRA OCEAN TRADE PVT LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2007-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
RATTAN SINGH RANGA VS. RAM KARAN [LAWS(P&H)-2015-9-324] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR VS. SURESH CHAND GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2010-11-379] [REFERRED TO]
JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LTD VS. DIGVIJAY CEMENT [LAWS(DLH)-2008-7-249] [REFERRED TO]
JAYANTBHAI HASUKHLAL KOTHARI VS. HEMANT CHAMPAKLAL SHAH [LAWS(GJH)-2023-6-489] [REFERRED TO]
GOLDSQUARE SALES INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. RAHUL NARVEKAR [LAWS(DLH)-2014-3-388] [REFERRED TO]
SONU VS. PRITIKA FASHIONS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2014-12-421] [REFERRED TO]
S JANAKI VS. SWETHA ASSOCIATES [LAWS(MAD)-2009-9-326] [REFERRED TO]
ARIBAM BIJOYKUMAR SHARMA VS. LAIPHRAKPAM BORMANI SINGH [LAWS(MANIP)-2017-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
DREAM CREATIONS VS. PALI RAM [LAWS(DLH)-2011-3-169] [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF INDIA VS. MADURA COATS LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2008-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
NEOLITE POLYMER INDUSTRIES PVT LTD VS. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK [LAWS(BOM)-2007-7-234] [REFERRED TO]
R S SOLUTIONS VS. DAN BLOCKS BRAKES INDIA PVT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2014-9-596] [REFERRED]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD VS. STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2006-12-12] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN LAL PERIWAL AND OTHERS VS. BASUDEO KHAITAN AND OTHER [LAWS(CAL)-2008-9-93] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI KUMARPAL MANEKLAL SHAH VS. S ANIL TRADERS THROUGH PROP ANIL KHIMRAJ JAIN [LAWS(GJH)-2008-4-251] [REFERRED TO]
IDBI TRUSTEESHIP SERVICES LTD. VS. HUBTOWN LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2016-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
SATNAM SINGH VS. ASHU GARG [LAWS(P&H)-2016-2-352] [REFERRED TO]
KAMAL MAITHIL VS. AJAY SHARMA [LAWS(MPH)-2023-3-163] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY STEEL VS. KAPIL KUMAR TAYAL [LAWS(DLH)-2010-2-169] [REFERRED TO]
NEOLITE POLYMER INDUSTRIES PVT LTD VS. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK [LAWS(BOM)-2007-8-81] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Challenge in this appeal is to the judgement rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petition No. 2521 of 2005 filed by the appellant. By the impugned judgement the High Court upheld the view of the trial court in Summary Suit No. 10 of 2001 that the appellant has not made out a case for unconditional leave to defend in terms of Or. 37 R. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (in short the 'CPC').
(3.)The factual background in a nutshell are as follows:
Summary Suit No. 10 of 2001 has been filed by the respondent before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Kalyan for recovery of an amount of Rs. 98,81,426.63. In addition, the plaintiff has claimed interest from the date of filing of the suit till the realisation of the amount. The suit was filed on 05.07.2001. After issuing notice, the writ petitioner- defendant filed an application under Or. 37 R. 3(5) of the Civil Procedure Code for leave to defend unconditionally and the said application was rejected by the trial Court. The writ Petitioner, therefore, approached the High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 659 of 2002 and in terms of the consent orders, it was disposed of on 02.05.2002. The said order was to the effect that the writ petitioner was to deposit an amount of Rs. 20,00,000.00 with the trial Court within four months to show his bonafides and was entitled to take out an application for leave to defend which was required to be heard on merits. If he succeeded in his application for leave to defend, he was allowed to withdraw the amount deposited. The trial Court heard the parties afresh and by order dated 11.03.2005 allowed the application (Ex. 34) on the condition that the writ petitioner was to deposit an additional amount of Rs. 50,00,000.00 in two instalments. The said order was challenged before the High Court.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.