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

Santosh Kumar v. Bhai Mool Singh Air 1958



Facts-

A cheque for Rs 6000 given by the appellant to plaintiff was dishonoured by the Bank. A summary suit under Order XXXVII  filed by the plaintiff. Defendant applied for leave to defend. Trial Judge permitted to defend but with condition of giving security. Defendant applied for review but failed. Under Article 227 of the Constitution he applied to Punjab HC to review but also failed. Then under Article 136 of the Constitution, special leave petition granted by the Supreme Court to review.

Contention of Defendant 

  1. Discretion conferred by Rule 3(2) is unfettered and no appeal can lie against it unless there is a grave miscarriage of justice or violation of law.
  2. The cheque was given only as a collateral security and the goods were to be paid by cash and other cheques.

Issue

  1. Whether the discretion placed by Rule 3(2) of Order XXXVII, CPC is unfettered?
  2. Whether the decision of earlier Court of granting leave on condition was right or not?

Ratio Decidendi

  1. Law of Procedure should be exercised along judicial lines in consonance with the principle of natural justice.
  2. Jacob v. Booth- If the issue is triable, leave may be granted unconditionally otherwise it may be illusory.
  3. Object behind discretion is to prevent delay.
  4. A clear defence does not become vague merely by not bringing the evidence on file at the time of putting the defence.
  5. Stage of proof can come only after the defendant has been allowed to enter an appearance and defend the Suit.
  6. HC was in error in thinking that even on a valid defence, conditions can be imposed.
  7. Conditions can be imposed by the Court when it is of opinion that the defence is not bonafide but it can't refuse leave to defend.
  8. Conditions are only to ensure speedy trial.

Decision

  • Allowed appeal
  • set aside the orders of the earlier Court.


Get more updates:-

LinkedIn:- NiyamsKanoon
Instagram :- Niyams_Kanoon

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 This case interpretation/case summary is written by Mr. Sonu Choudhary , 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 . 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. Fac
Read more