Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1990 (11) TMI 323

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted October 28, 1987. The claim was based on the original consideration and balance of account. The appellants filed a written statement in the claim dated January 22, 1989. Therein, the plea was that they were rendering professional services to the respondent-company, as narrated in the written statement, and which will be substantiated by a reference to the records, which are in the possession of the claimant. It was stated that the understanding between the parties was that no amount was to be repaid to the claimant-company. It was stated that the promissory note was executed only for company records. The appellants also pleaded that as per the rules followed by the claimant-company, when a subscriber defaults three consecutive instalmen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... filed in court on January 24, 1989. The matter stood posted before court on February 6, 1989. On that day, the court adjourned the matter for reply of the claimant and posted the matter to March 7, 1989. When the matter stood posted again on March 7, 1989, the claimant had not filed any reply then and so the court, adjourned the matter to April 3, 1989. Even on that day, the reply was not filed. So, the court adjourned the case to June 20, 1989. The reply is not seen filed even on June 20, 1989, to which date the claim stood posted. On June 20, 1989, the learned single judge, after noticing in brief the contention of the appellants, stated thus: "The additional director will verify this contention and if the contention is true, record sa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m consideration, and so the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Bank of Bihar v. Mahabir Lal [1963] 33 Comp Cas 783; AIR 1964 SC 377, paragraph S and State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, AIR 1982 SC 1249, at page 1251, para. 4, will not strictly apply. So, we proceed to consider the matter on merits. Counsel for the appellants submitted that he has raised very valid pleas in defence. They are to the effect, that the claim is barred by limitation, and that the understanding was that no amount was to be repaid to the company and that the promissory note was executed only for company records. The appellants' counsel further submitted that the acknowledgment, if any, should be in writing and mere payment is not enough. I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the case, after the filing of the written statement. To repeat the appellants filed the written statement dated January 22, 1989, on January 24, 1989. The matter stood posted to February 6, 1989. On that day, the court adjourned the claim for the reply of the claimant. It stood posted to March 7, 1989. The claimant did not file any reply then. So, the matter was adjourned to April 3, 1989. The claimant did not file any reply even on that day. So, the court adjourned the case to June 20, 1989. Even on that day, it does not appear that the claimant filed any reply. The matter came up before the learned single judge on that day and he proceeded to deliver judgment on that day itself. Though the court itself has adjourned the claim for the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat it is primarily the duty of the court to frame the issues: Kesavan v. Narayanan, AIR 1953 Trav-Coch 118, at page 119. A court commits a grave irregularity in proceeding to the final hearing of a case without settling the issues therein: Muttayan Chetti v. Sangili Vira Pandia Chinnathambiar [1882] ILR 6 Mad 1, 9 (PC); Chiranji Lal v. Shankar Lal, AIR 1951 Raj 56; Aziz Ahmed Klian v. I . A Patel, AIR 1974 AP 1 [FB] and Kaniz Fatima v. Shah Nairn Ashraf, AIR 1983 All 450. We are satisfied that such irregularity, on the facts of this case, is a material one affecting the disposal of the case on merits. On the facts of this case, in the nature of the serious contentions raised, the failure to frame the issues is a materi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates