Posts

Showing posts with the label Summary Procedure

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
Read more

M/s. Mechalec Engrs. & Manufacturers v. M/s. Basic Equipment Corn. AIR 1977 SC 577

Image
Facts The plaintiff-respondent instituted a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC for recovery of an amount, given by the defendant-appellant in the form of a cheque which was dishonoured by the State Bank of India, with interest.  The cheque was given by the appellant as the price for procuring equipment.  The defendant-appellant applied for leave to defend under Rule 2, Order XXXVII  of the Code which had been granted unconditionally by the Trial Court.  On a revision application by the plaintiff-respondent under S.115 of the Code , the HC interfered and held that although a triable issue arose, the defences were not bonafide. Hence the defendant-appellant would be allowed to defend only after paying the said amount to the court as security within 2 months. Against the order of HC, this appeal has been granted by special leave. Issue  Whether the HC can interfere under S.115 of the Code, with the discretionary power of Additional District Judge in granting unconditional leave
Post a Comment
Read more

Santosh Kumar v. Bhai Mool Singh Air 1958

Image
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  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. The cheque was given only as a collateral security and the goods were to be paid by cash and other cheques. Issue Whether the discretion placed by Rule 3(2) of Order XXXVII, CPC is unfettered? Whether the decision of earlier Court of granting leave on condition was right or not? Ratio Decidendi Law of Procedure should be exer
Post a Comment
Read more