A recovery suit concerned a partner’s undertaking and related guarantees. The court rejected challenges based on coercion and public policy, upheld conditional leave to defend, and dismissed the appeal with exemplary costs. The request for a stay was rejected.
Exemplary costs awarded to the plaintiffs, payable by the appellant within two weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
COMAP121_17.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICAtURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 1.21. OF 2017 IN
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.82 OF 2015 IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.883 OF 2015
Ashok M. Chheda Vs.
Appellant
MIs. Satyam Builders and others Respondents
Mr. Zubin Behramkarndin i/h. Mr. Govind Solanke for Appellant. Mr. F. I. Devitre, Senior Advocate alw. Mn Anuparn Surve, Mr. Vinayak Vengurlekar and Ms Nitisha [ad i/h. Nair Vengurlekar & Co. for Respondents No.1 to 4 and 6. Mr. Som Sinha for Respondents No.8 and 9.
CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & R. G. KETKAR, JJ.
Reserved on : NOVEMBER 16, 2017 Pronounced on: DECEMBER 7, 2017
ORDER: (PER R. G. KETKAR, J.)
Heard Mr. Behramkamdin, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Devitre, learned Senior Counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 and 6 and Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel for respondents No.8 and 9 at length.
2. By this Appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (for shortAct), appellant, hereinafter referred to as 'defendant No.1', has challenged the judgment and order dated 06.12.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Summons for Judgment No.82 of 2015 in Summary Suit No.883 of 2015. By that order, the learned Single Judge granted conditional leave to defend to CL
1/26
COMAPI21I7.sxw
the defendant No.1 and respondent No.7, hereinafter referred to as 'defendant No.6', subject to their depositing Rs.2,20,00,000/- with the Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court, Bombay as a condition precedent for leave to defend, within six weeks. Upon deposit, the Prothonotary and Senior Master was directed to invest the same in a Fixed Deposit with a Nationalized Bank for a period of one year in the beginning and to renew the same from year to year until final disposal of the Suit, among other directions. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned Single Judge.
2/26
COMAPI2117.sxw
Rs.1,30,00,000/- respectively. These two flats were sold at an undervalued price. The sale proceeds of Rs.2,75,00,000/- were deposited in the firm's bank account. Between 22.03.2012 and 31.03.2012, amount of Rs.2,40,00,000I- was transferred by defendants No.1 and 6 from the bank account of plaintiff No.1, partly into two personal accounts of defendant No.1 and partly in the new joint bank account held by the defendant No.1 and defendant No.6. It is further alleged that between 11,04.2010 and 13.04.2010, a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- of plaintiff No.1 was illegally transferred from the plaintiff No.1's bank account to the joint account of defendants No.1 and 6. This was subsequently transferred to the bank account of one Ketki Developers, a partnership firm in which the defendants No.2 and 3 were partners. On 12.04.2012, plaintiff No.4 lodged a complaint against defendants No.1 and 6. In pursuance thereof, Matunga Police Station registered F.I.R. No.59 of 2012 against defendants No.1 and 6 as also defendants No.2 to 5 on 14.06.2012 under Sections 380, 406, 420, 467 read with 120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'l.P.C.'). Defendants No.1 and 6 had filed anticipatory bail applications. Anticipatory bail application of defendant No.1 was rejected. Anticipatory bail application of defendant No.6 was allowed. Defendant No.1 was arrested and produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court Esplanade on 15.09.2012. He was remanded to police custody till 26.09.2012.
3/26
COMAP1217.sxw
same day, defendant No.1 and defendants No. 2 to 5, who were arrested along with defendant No.1, signed and executed Suo-moto Undertaking. a They inter alia undertook to reimburse a sum of Rs.2,20,00,000I- being the amount for the loss suffered by the plaintiff No.1 for the underpriced sale of two flats within 30 days of grant of bail. In case of any default by all or any of them, bail granted to all or any of them was to stand cancelled.
a purshis along with affidavit of plaintiff No.4 with undertaking and guarantees. Defendant No.1 filed fresh bail application reiterating that he had executed the undertaking to the plaintiff No.4. Defendants No.6 to 8 had given guarantees and the matter was settled. Plaintiff No.4 had also given an affidavit signifying no objection to the defendant No.1 for granting conditional bail. On 25.09.2012, defendant No.1 was enlarged on bail. Likewise, defendants No.2 to 5 were also enlarged on bail.
4/26
COMAP121_17.sxw
(c) On17th October 2012, defendant no.1 sent a letter to the plaintiff no.1 confirming that the purported MOU between the plaintiff no.1 and Ketki Developers as well as purported Agreements for Sale with defendant no.4 and defendant no.5 had been cancelled;
(d) On 17" October 2012, defendant no.1 sent a letter to the plaintiff no.1 enclosing a cheque of Rs.84,00,000 in part payment of the sum of Rs.2,40,00,000. The balance of Rs.1,50,00,000 was already deposited in the Court and would be returned to the Firm by Ketki Developers;
(e) On 17" October 2012, defendant no.4 sent a declaration to the plaintiff no.1 that his purported Agreement for Flat No.1104 executed with defendant no.1 was cancelled;
(0On 17th October 2012, Ketki Developers sent a declaration to the plaintiff no.1 that their purported MOU of 13th April 2012 executed with defendant no.1 was cancelled;
(g) On 17' October 2012, defendant no.5 sent a declaration to the plaintiff no.1 that his purported Agreement for Flat No.1101 executed with defendant no.1 was cancelled."
5/26
COMAP121_17.sxw
defendant No.1 had to issue a cheque for Rs.84,00,000/- which was required to be cleared. By order dated 23.11.2012, the learned Magistrate permitted defreezing of the account. By letter dated 04.12.2012 addressed to the plaintiff No.1, defendant No.1 alleged that he had performed all his obligations in the undertaking and requested discharging guarantors defendants No.6 to 8 of all their obligations under the respective guarantees. Plaintiff No.1 disputed that defendant No.1 had fulfilled all the terms of the undertaking by reply dated 11.12.2012.
6/26
COMAPI 21_i 7. sxw
granted conditional leave to defend against defendants No.1 and 6. It is against this order, defendant No.1 has preferred this Appeal.
7/26
COMAP121_17.sxw
undertaking and the respective guarantees. I-Ic submitted that the learned Single Judge committed patent illegality in observing that the - consideration is the fact that the plaintiffs have settled the matter and granted no objection for the bail to be given to the defendant No.1. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the defendant No.1 was in jail and the undertaking obtained from him was under duress and plaintiffs have exerted coercion on defendant No.1 for giving that undertaking. He relied upon Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (for short 'Act') to contend that the consideration of an agreement was unlawful and is against the public policy. He submitted that a perusal of the undertaking clearly shows that the defendant No.1 had given undertaking while he was in police custody.
is. Mr. Behramkamdin submitted that defendant No.6 relied upon decision in Veiji Raghavji Pate! Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 1433 to contend that the criminal complaint against partner of the firm was not maintainable because every partner has dominion over property by reason of the fact that he is a partner and this is a kind of dominion which every owner of property has over his property. The learned Single Judge dealt with this judgment in paragraph 22 by simply observing that the Division Bench while rejecting the Petition filed by the defendant No.1 for quashing a F.I.R.. also considered the said decision and still did not quash the F.I.R. Mr. Behramkamdin, therefore, criticised that the learned Single Judge did not deal with the submissions advanced on behalf of the defendant No.6 relying upon the said decision.
C-'
8/26
COMAP121_17.sxw
"It appears to be a dispute within the family. The money has been transferred by the person who had powers to sign the cheque. I do not think it is a criminal case. The complainant can approach the Court for remedy."
9/26
COMAP121_17.sxw
agreement for sale, plaintiff No.4 was a witness. Defendant No.1 in his capacity as a partner of plaintiff No.1 sold two other flats being flats - No.1102 and 1103 between20th and26th March 2012 for a consideration of Rs.1,45,00,000/- and Rs.1,30,00,000/- respectively, which was duly deposited into plaintiff No.1's bank. Both these flats were sold for a consideration considerably higher than that of flat No.1001 despite the fact that they were of the same size as flat No.1001. In paragraph (g), it was contended that it has been the practice of the firm to take loans I advances from partners, their spouses, their family, which loans I advances were repaid as and when funds were available with the firm, whether directly by the firm or by the concerned partners appropriating the same. Keeping in mind the practice of the firm, it was unanimously decided to transfer monies from the firm's account into defendant No'l's account and thereafter to his wife's account (defendant No.6). Further since the payment to Ketki Developers became due, defendant No.1 transferred a total sum of Rs.1.5 crores (Rs.50 lac each time) from his wife's account to his account and from his account to the account of the Ketki Developers. Accordingly, on behalf of the firm, defendant No.1 made payments of Rs.1.5 crore as part-payment for the said land, all within his authority as a working partner of the plaintiff No.]. firm.
107, and in particular paragraphs 8 to 10 thereof to contend that Section 23 provides that every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void, and it is opposed to public policy. It is further Qv
10/26
COMAP121_17.sxw
observed that agreements made by the parties for stifling prosecution are not enforced by courts on the ground that the consideration for such - agreements is opposed to public policy. If a person sets the machinery of the criminal law into action on the allegation that the opponent has committed a non-compoundable offence and by the use of this coercive criminal process, he compels the opponent to enter into an agreement, that agreement would be treated as invalid for the reason that its consideration is opposed to public policy. In the present case, the F.I.R. is lodged under Section 380 I.P.C. among other Sections. Section 380 is non-compoundable. He submitted that the Apex Court has considered the decisions in Kamini Kumar Basu (supra) and Bhowanipur Banking Corporation Limited (supra).
11/26
COMAP121_17.sxw
indicating that he has a fair or reasonable defence, although not a positively good defence, the plaintiff is not entitled to sign judgment, and the defendant is ordinarily entitled to unconditional leave to defend. (paragraph 18-b). Even if the defendant raises triable issues if a doubt is left with the trial Judge about the defendant's good faith or genuineness of the triable issues, the trial judge may impose conditions both as to time or mode of trial, as well as payment into court or furnishing security. Care must also be taken to see that the object of the provisions to assist expeditious disposal of commercial causes is not defeated. Care must also be taken to see that such triable issues are not shut out by unduly severe orders as to deposit or security. (paragraphs 18-c).
22.On the other hand, Mr. Devitre supported the impugned order. He submitted that by granting conditional leave to defend to defendants No.1 and 6, the learned Single Judge has showed indulgence. The learned Single Judge has given opportunity to the defendants No.1 and 6 to defend the Suit, though defendant No.1 has admitted liability. He submitted that after giving suo mowundertaking on 17.09.2012, defendant No.1 has acted upon the said undertaking. He had derived benefits under the undertaking and after two and half years when time for paying balance amount came, defendant No.1 started alleging that the said undertaking was given under coercion. Mr. Devitre has invited our attention to -
(a) letter dated 11.12.2012 addressed by the plaintiff No.1 to the defendant No.1;
(b) reply dated 20.12.2012 given by the defendant No.];
(c) letter dated 23.02.2013 addressed by the defendant No.1 to Navin D. Shah of MIs. Satyam Builders and in particular paragraph 2 thereof; (d) application dated 17,09.2012 made by Advocate Anjali Patil before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19 Court,
12/26
COMAP121_17.sxw
Esplanade for permission to take signature of the accused in the presence of the police office on Vakalatnama and undertaking. On the same day, the learned Magistrate allowed that application. On the same day i.e. 17.09.2012, MIs. Chitnis & Co., Advocate, High Court obtained no objection from Advocate Anjali PaUl to attend the matter. The undertaking was prepared by MIs. Chimis & Co. and was duly signed in their presence by defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 to 5. Defendants No.2 to 5 also individually gave guarantees for performance of the undertaking by defendant No.1. In pursuance of that undertaking, defendant No.1 filed application on 30.10.2012 for defreezing the bank accounts. In that application, defendant No.1 specifically asserted at various places that he along with the other defendants have given suo mow undertaking dated 17.09.2012. to the plaintiff No.1 and its partners. It was further stated that the defendant No.1 and others have performed most of their respective obligations and as mentioned in the suo moW undertaking dated 17.09.2012. As per clause 2 of the suo mow undertaking, defendant No.1 and others have undertaken to return the amount of Rs.2,40,00,000/- within one month of grant of bail i.e. from 25.09.2012 to the plaintiff No.1 firm. Out of Rs.2,40,00,0001-, an amount of Rs.1,50,00,000I- was received by the plaintiff No.1 firm from MIs. Ketki Developers. He submitted that the said application was drafted by MIs. Chitnis & Co. By order dated 23.11.2012, the learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate defreezed two bank accounts of defendant No.1 and gave liberty to operate the two bank accounts. Defendant No.1 was further directed to return Ps. 84,00,000/- to the plaintiff No.]. firm. Defendant No.6 also filed similar application for defreezing bank account which was allowed on the same day by the learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate.
- Mr. I)evitre submitted that on 23.02.2013, defendant No.1
13/26
COMAP121_17.sxw
addressed letter to Navin I). Shah of MIs. Satyam Builders alleging that he has fulfilled all obligations under the suo motu undertaking. He - further alleged that plaintiffs agreed to relax the conditions stipulated under clauses ito 5 of the undertaking dated 17.09.2012. He invited our attention to the order dated 12.08.2014 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ Petitions filed by the defendant No.1 and defendant No.6 for quashing F.I.R. namely C.R.No.176 of 2012. Those Petitions were dismissed by observing that prima facie it does appear that undertaking given by the defendant No.1 was not complied with by him. Prima facie, the complaint discloses ingredients of offences which have been levelled against the accused. He also invited our attention to the order dated 09.03.2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.423 of 2013 filed for quashing F.i.R.No.59 of 2012. He submitted that even today, MIs. Chimis & Co. are representing defendant No.1 and still allegations are made against them.
14/26
COMAP121_17.sxw
17.09.2012. He submitted that plaintiffs are not stifling prosecutions and in fact it was abundantly made clear. He has taken us through the letter dated 15.01.2013 addressed on behalf of the plaintiff No.1 to the defendant No.1 and in particular paragraph 5 thereof, which was in reply to the letter dated 20.12.2012 addressed by the defendant No.1 to Navin Shah of plaintiff No.1. In paragraph 5, it was denied that plaintiff is doing anything to create a ground to avoid giving consent for withdrawing F.I.R. vide C.R.No.59 of 2012 as falsely alleged by the defendant No.1 or at all. In fact plaintiff is not under obligation of giving his consent for withdrawing F.I.R.No.59 of 2012. Plaintiff is not in fact aware of any such procedure of withdrawal of F.I.R. by consent of the complainant.
25. Mr. Devitre heavily relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in Aanchal Cement Limited Vs. Gimpex Limited, 2015 (2) Madras Weekly Notes (Civil) 434, and in particular paragraphs 4, 5.5, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.11, 14.4, 18 and 20 thereof. He submitted that the facts obtaining in this case are identical to the facts obtaining in the present case. The learned Single Judge of Madras High Court referred to the decisions of Kamini Kumar Basu (supra), Bhowanipur Banking Corporation Limited (supra) and V. Narasimharaju (supra). In paragraph 18, it was observed that since the deed of compromise was obtained while second plaintiff was in judicial custody, that itself, is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the deed of compromise was obtained under coercion and threat. To prove the threat / coercion, some more evidences is required, which is lacking in this case. In paragraph 20, the learned Single Judge dealt with the submissions that under the deed of compromise, it was agreed by the defendant to say no objection for the bail application flied by the second plaintiff in respect of the complaint lodged by the defendant for non-compoundable offence and
15/26
COMAPI2117.sxw
also further agreed to withdraw the criminal complaint, the proceedings under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and other legal proceedings initiated by the defendant against the plaintiff. According to the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, agreeing for the withdrawal of non-compoundable offence under agreement for settling the claim of a party is totally opposed to public polity and hit by Section 23 of the Act. The learned Single Judge referred to the decision in Union Carbide Corporation Vs. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 248 as also Deb Kumar Ray Choudhary Vs. Anant Bandhu Sea, AIR 1931 Cal 42. The learned Single Judge observed that from reading of the judgments, it can be seen that,
(2) If the dropping of the criminal prosecution in respect of non-compoundable offence is a motive for entering into the compromise agreement, but the same has not been made as a consideration, then the doctrine of stifling of prosecution will not be attracted.
(3) If there is a pre-existing civil liability, in those cases the dropping of criminal prosecution need not necessarily he a consideration.
16/26
COMAPI21_17.sxw
17/26
COMAP121_17.sxw
defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 to 5, who were arrested along with the defendant No.1, signed and executed suo mow undertaking inter alia undertaking to reimburse a sum of Rs.2,20,00,000/-, within 30 days of grant of bail, being the amount for the loss suffered by the plaintiff No.1 for the under-priced sale of two flats. The said undertaking is drafted by Mis. Chitnis & Co. In fact, in pursuance of the undertaking, defendants No.2 to 5 executed guarantee on 20.09.2012. Defendant No.6 also executed a deed of guarantee. Defendants No.7 and 8 jointly executed another deed of guarantee inter a/ia guaranteeing the full, complete and punctual observance, performance and duties and undertaking of the principal debtor i.e. defendant No.1 and original defendants No.2 to 5 in the undertaking. On 24.09.2012, defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 to 5 submitted purshis along with affidavit of plaintiff No.4 with undertakings and guarantees. On 25.09.2012, defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 to 5 were enlarged on bail. Prima fade, it does not appear that plaintiffs were in picture at the time of defendant No.1 giving suo mow undertaking.
a-i'
18/26
COMAP121_17.sxw
sum of Rs.2,40,00,000/-. The balance amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- was already deposited in the Court, which was to be returned to the defendant No.1 firm by Ketki Developers. On the same day, defendant No.4 sent a declaration to the plaintiff No.1 that his purported agreement for sale for flat No.1104 executed with defendant No.1 was cancelled. On the same day, Ketki Developers sent a declaration to the plaintiff No.1 that their purported MOU of 13.04.2012 executed with defendant No.1 was cancelled. On 17.10.2012, defendant No.5 sent a declaration to the plaintiff No.1 that his purported agreement for flat No.1101 executed with defendant No.1 was cancelled. Not only that, on 25.10.2012, defendant No.1 sent email seeking extension of time for complying rest of the obligations contained in the undertaking. Accordingly, plaintiff No.4 gave extension upto 24.11.2012 to the defendant No.1. On 30.10.2012, defendant No.1 and defendant No.6 filed separate applications in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for defreezing their bank account with the Indian Bank. A perusal of these applications shows that repeatedly in that application, it was asserted that defendant No.1 and other accused have given suo mow undertaking dated 17.09.2012 to the plaintiff No.1 firm. There is no whisper as regards exerting coercion by the plaintiffs in obtaining undertaking from defendant No.1. The applications were allowed by the learned Magistrate. After hearing the concerned parties, the learned Magistrate defreezed the accounts and permitted defendants No.1 and 6 to operate the bank accounts.
19/26
COMAP121_17.sxw
2015, defendants No.1 and 6 lodged complaint with the police alleging that plaintiffs have coerced defendant No.1 to sign the undertaking. in our opinion, prima facie, the stand taken by the defendant No.1 is totally dishonest. In the first place, defendant No.1 and other defendants acted upon the suo mow undertaking dated 17.09.2012. In pursuance thereof, from time to time, they took necessary steps, as indicated hereinabove. At no point of time, defendant No.1 took up a plea of plaintiff's exerting coercion on defendant No.1 for executing the suo mow undertaking. Secondly, on 25.10.2012, defendant No.1 sought extension of time for complying rest of the obligations in the undertaking. Plaintiff No.4 gave extension upto 24.11.2012. Thirdly, on 04.12.2012, by addressing letter to the plaintiff No.1, defendant No.1 claimed that he had performed all the obligations in the undertaking and requested discharging defendants No.6 to 8 of all their obligations under the respective guarantees. This fact was disputed by the plaintiff No.1 by reply dated 11.12.2012. In other words, had the plaintiffs not disputed this fact, defendant No.1, though was coerced, had fulfilled all the obligations in the undertaking. Defendants No.1 and 6, for the first time, while lodging the complaint with police in February, 2015 alleged that plaintiffs have coerced defendant No.1 to sign the undertaking. In our opinion, this is nothing but an after thought on the part of the defendant No.1.
C-21
20/26
COMAP121_17.sxw
Act defines the expression 'coercion' as under,
"15. "Coercion" defined.- "Coercion" is the committing, or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatevei with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.
Explanation.- It is immaterial whether the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is or is not in force in the place where the coercion is employed."
21126
COMAP121_17.sxw
22/26
COMAP121_17.sxw
for quashing F.I.R. were dismissed by this Court. In our opinion, the defence taken by the defendants is dishonest and is also an after-thought. The same is taken with a view to protracting compliance of the undertaking given by the defendant No.1 as far back as on 17.09.2012.
"52. The main question which arises for our consideration is whether the prevailing delay in civil litigation can be curbed? In our considered opinion the existing system can be drastically changed or improved if the following steps are taken by the trial courts while dealing with the civil trials.
B. The Court should resort to discovery and production of documents and interrogatories at the earliest according to the object of the Act. If this exercise is carefully carried out, it would focus the controversies involved in the case and help the court in arriving at truth of the matter and doing substantial justice.
D. The Court must adopt realistic and pragmatic approach in granting mesne profits. The Court most carefully keep in view the ground realities while granting mesne profits.
E. The courts should be extremely careful and cautious
23/26
COMAP12 1_i 7.sxw
in granting ex-parte ad interim injunctions or stay orders. Ordinarily short notice should be issued to the Defendants or Respondents and only after hearing concerned parties appropriate orders should be passed.
F Litigants who obtained ex-parte ad interim injunction on the strength of false pleadings and forged documents should be adequately punished. No one should be allowed to abuse the process of the court.
G. The principle of restitution be fully applied in a pragmatic manner in order to do real and substantial justice.
H. Every case emanates from a human or a commercial problem and the Court must make serious endeavour to resolve the problem within the framework of law and in accordance with the well settled principles of law and justice.
I. If in a given case, ex-parte injunction is granted, then the said application for grant of injunction should be disposed of on merits, after hearing both sides as expeditiously as may be possible on a priority basis and undue adjournments should be avoided.
J. At the time of filing of the plaint, the trial court should prepare complete schedule and fix dates for all the stages of the suit, right from filing of the written statement till pronouncement of judgment and the courts should strictly adhere to the said dates and the said time table as far as possible. If any interlocutory application is filed then the same be disposed of in between the said dates of hearings fixed in the said suit itself so that the date fixed for the main suit may not be disturbed.
Ck
24/26
COMAP121_17.sxw
"False claims and false defences
On-
25/26
COMAP121_17.sxw
proceedings."
(R. G. &KAR, J.)
(NARE H H. PATIL, J.)
Afina(Tam6
26/26
3 issues framed by the court
Could a Section 23 challenge founded on coercion be raised for the first time in appeal as a pure question of law?
Was the undertaking prima facie opposed to public policy as an agreement to stifle prosecution?
Did the defences warrant unconditional leave to defend or interference with the deposit condition?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Veiji Raghavji Pate! Vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶57
Veiji Raghavji Pate! Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 1433 · Who else cites this
Kamini Kumar Raw Vs. Birendra Nath BasuReferred¶69
Kamini Kumar Raw Vs. Birendra Nath Basu, 57 IA 117
Rhowanipur Banking Corporation Limited Vs. DurgeshReferred¶70
Rhowanipur Banking Corporation Limited Vs. Durgesh, AIR 1941 PC 95 · Who else cites this
V Narasimbaraju Vs. V. Gurumurthy RajuReferred¶71
V Narasimbaraju Vs. V. Gurumurthy Raju, AIR 1963 sc 107 · Who else cites this
IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited Vs. Hubtown LimitedApplied¶132
IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited Vs. Hubtown Limited, (2016) 4 BCR 266
Aanchal Cement Limited Vs. Gimpex LimitedApplied¶131
Aanchal Cement Limited Vs. Gimpex Limited, 2015 (2) Madras Weekly Notes (Civil) 434
Ramrameshwari Devi Vs. Nirmala DeviRelied on¶138
Ramrameshwari Devi Vs. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249 · Who else cites this
Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes Vs. Erasmo Jack de SequeriaRelied on¶159
Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria, AIR 2012 Sc 1727 · Who else cites this
Messer Holding Limited Vs. Shyam Madanmohan RuiaRelied on¶167
Messer Holding Limited Vs. Shyam Madanmohan Ruia, AIR 2016 Sc 1948 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ashok M. Chheda
MIs. Satyam Builders
NARESH H. PATIL
R. G. KETKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
