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

2010 (2) TMI 1316

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e to defend. Arguments on the application for leave to defend were addressed by the counsel for the parties and order thereon reserved. It was at this stage, that the respondent/defendant made a reference to the BIFR and the reference of the respondent/defendant was registered and the bar of Section 22 of the SICA invoked. The only contention of the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff before the learned Single Judge and before us is that since nothing remained to be proceeded with in the suit, Section 22 did not apply and the learned Single Judge ought to have pronounced the orders / judgment on the application of the respondent/defendant for leave to defend. The contention of the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff is that there is no hi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... journment is not for hearing and the Court has only adjourned the matter for pronouncing the order/judgment that the defendant is not entitled to apply under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC. However, Section 22 of SICA does not use the expression hearing.. It provides that no suit for recovery of money...shall lie or be proceeded with further.... Thus, the bar is to the very institution of the suit, if the suit had not been instituted prior to the applicability of Section 22 and if the suit has already been instituted before Section 22 comes into play, the bar is to the suit being proceeded with further. Put in other words, whether it can be said that nothing remains to be proceeded with further after arguments have been heard and order/judgme .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (i) Surendra Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 194 holding that pronouncement and delivery of judgment in open Court is a judicial act which must be performed in a judicial way; up to the moment the judgment is delivered Judges have the right to change their mind; (ii) Chandgi v. Mehar Chand AIR 1998 P H 197 where the Single Judge of that Court held, an application under Order 18 Rule 17A of the CPC permitted to be filed at a later stage , to be maintainable even if the judgment had been reserved. It was held that pronouncement of judgment is also a stage of the suit and final culmination of judicial proceedings would take place only upon the pronouncement of judgment and the Court becomes functus officio only o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nce, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable on some future day and when judgment is to be pronounced on some future day notice thereof shall be given to the parties. Sub Rule (3) further provides that the judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open court. Rule (3) provides that the judgment shall be dated and signed by the Judge in open court at the time of pronouncing it and, when once signed, shall not afterwards be altered or added to. From the said provisions it follows that if the judgment is not pronounced on the same day as the hearing, not only does the Judge have to dictate / prepare the judgment but to also give notice of the date of pronouncement and to sign and pronounce the same in the open Court. The judgment when not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... proceedings were required to be undertaken by the court thereafter and only if the action of the Court of pronouncement of judgment was to relate back to the date of hearing. However, it is not so in law. In the existing state of affairs, to differentiate between the proceedings required to be taken for pronouncement of the judgment and the proceeding required to be undertaken for taking any other steps in the suit has no rational nexus. The purport of Section 22 was to protect a sick company from the legal proceedings of the nature mentioned in Section 22. Prior to amendment thereof, suits were not included and the bar applied only to execution proceedings. However, after the amendment in the year 1994, the legislature deemed it appropriat .....

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