Must Read

M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, 1964

Image
M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, (1964) 6 SCR 642, 651 This case interpretation/case summary is written by Ms. Swati Sharma a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to  niyamskanoon09@gmail.com . Case Details PETITIONER:  MRS. M. N. CLUBWALA AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: FIDA HUSSAIN SAHEB AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/1964 BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. SUBBARAO, K. CITATION: 1965 AIR 610 1964 SCR (6) 642 Introduction   The case of M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb (1964) under the Delhi Rent Control Act is a landmark judgment that clarifies the distinction between a lease and a license and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The primary issue in this case was whether the agreements between the landlord (M.N. Clubwala) and the shopkeepers (Fida Hussain Saheb) created a lease or a license.  Facts of the Case M.N. Clubwala (Landlord) used his building as market by
Post a Comment

Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd, AIR 1998

Introduction 

This case is related to the Doctrine of Sub Judice or section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.


 Relevant Section

Facts 

  • Respondent (Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd.) applies to the appellant bank to open an irrevocable letter of credit for a sum of 3,78,90,000 /- in favor of 'Shankar Rice Mill'.
  • Under the request, the Bank opened an irrevocable letter of credit.
  • It is agreed that the documents drawn under the said letter of credit when tendered to the appellant bank were to be forwarded to the federation for their acceptance thereafter the bank had to make payment to 'Shankar Rice Mill' on behalf of the federation.
  • The bank filed a summary suit in the Bombay High Court under Order 37 of the code against the federation for obtaining a decree, stating that said amount has become revocable. 

The Federation/Respondent Contention 

  • Before filing a summary suit, there was already instituted a suit therefore there should be a stay on summary suit as per section 10.

The appellant contention
  • The very object of making a separate provision for summary suits will be frustrated if section 10 is made applicable to summary suits also.

Issue 

Whether Section 10 apply to summary suits filed under Order 37 of the Code? 

Case History and Ratio Decidendi 

Single Bench of Bombay H. Court held- 

  • The concept of trial contended in section 10 of the code applies only to a regular or ordinary suit and not to a summary suit filed under order 37 of the code.
Division Bench High Court held-
  • Section 10 applies to a summary suit also.
  • Therefore the summary suit filed by the bank a subsequently instituted a suit was required to be stayed.
Supreme Court (G.T. Nanavati, J.) held- 
  • Allowed appeal and set aside Decision of Division Bench and restored the order passed by learned single bench.
Ratio Decidendi-
  1. Meaning of Trial, in its widest sense, includes all the proceedings right from the stage of the institution of a plaint in a civil case to the stage of a final determination by a judgment or decree of a Court.
  2. By looking into the object and nature of Section 10, the word "Trial" is not used in its widest sense.
    • The object of S.10- To prevent the court of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits and also to avoid inconsistent findings on the matter in issue.
    • Nature of S.10- 
      • A rule of procedure and doesn't affect the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain and deal with the later suit
      • It is not a substantive right
      • It is not a bar to the institution of a suit
      • It is not a bar on the passing of interlocutory orders or appointment of a Receiver or an injunction or attachment before judgment.
  3. In a Summary suit, the "trial" begins after the Court or Judge grants leave to the defendant to contest the suit but in an ordinary suit, it includes entire proceedings starting with the institution of the suit by lodging a plaint.  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more