9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (11) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Smt. Pushpa Mittal, shown as one of its partners, for the recovery of ₹ 21,265.28 as principal and ₹ 7655/-, as interest at 12% per annum. according to law and Mercantile usage, on the strength of a cheque drawn by the defendant on 12th May, 1971, on the State Bank of India, which, on presentation, was dishonoured. The plaintiff alleged that the cheque was given as price of goods supplied. The defendant-appel- lant firm admitted the issue of the cheque by its Managing partner, but, it denied any privity of contract with the plaintiff firm. The defendant-appellant had its own version as to the reasons and purposes for which the cheque was drawn. The suit was instituted under the provisions of Order 37 Civil Procedure Code so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t per annum from the date of. suit till payment and costs of the suit (Only court fee amount at this stage and not the lawyer's fee). The amount will be deposited within two months. There will be no order as to costs of this revision . The only question which arises before us in this appeal by special leave: Could the High Court interfere, in exercise of its powers under section 115, Civil Procedure Code, with the discretion of the Additional District Judge, in granting unconditional leave to defence to the defendant-appellant upon grounds which even a perusal of the order of the High Court shows to be reasonable ? Santosh Kumar v. Bhai Mool Singh([1958] SCR 1211-1215. ), was a case where a cheque, the execution of which was ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ajit Prasad Tarway, Manager, (Purchase Stores), Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Balanagar, Hyderabad(AIR 1973. SC 76); D.L.F. Housing Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi v. Sarup Singh Ors. ([1970] (2) SCR 368); Milkhiram (India) Pvt. Ltd. Ors. v. Chamanlal Bros.( AIR 1965 SC 1698) We need not dilate on the well established principles repeatedly laid down by this Court which govern jurisdiction of the High Courts under section 115 C.P.C. We think that these principles were ignored by the learned Judge of the High Court in interfering with the discretionary order after a very detailed discussion of the facts of the case by the learned Judge of the High Court who had differred on a pure question of fact--whether the defences could be h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve to defend. (c) If the Defendant discloses such facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend, that is to say, although the affidavit does not positively and immediately make it clear that he has a defence, yet, shews such a state of facts as leads to the inference that at the trial of the action he may be able to establish a defence to the plaintiff's claim the Plaintiff is not entitled to judgment and the Defendant is entitled to leave to defend but in such a case the Court may in its discretion impose conditions as to the time or mode of trial but not as to payment into Court or furnishing security. (d) If the Defendant has no defence or the defence set up is illusory or sham or practically moonshine then ordinar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
