Dismissed

Cheminova India Ltd. v. M/S Gurshakti Enterprises and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Nov 2011CR/7318/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil revision challenged the trial court's grant of leave to defend a suit for recovery based on a dishonoured cheque. The High Court held that since the determination of whether the case falls under Order XXXVII CPC was suspended, and to ensure complete justice without procedural intricacies delaying disposal, the permission could not be declined. The revision was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal or revision petition challenging the grant of leave to defend was dismissed.

Cheminova India Ltd. Vs M/S… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Revision No. 7318 of 2011 (O&M)

¶3

Date of decision: November 29, 2011

¶4

The Cheminova India Limited

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s Gurshakti Enterpries and others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal

¶10

Present: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

A.N. Jindal, J

¶12

A suit for recovery of `32,18,249.24 was filed by the plaintiffpetitioner company against the respondents under Order XXXVII Rules 1 and 2 CPC on the basis of the cheque which the respondents had allegedly issued in favour of the plaintiff company and were dishonoured. The petitioner had also filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with regard to dishonouring of the said cheque.

¶13

On service upon the respondents, they appeared and moved an application for leave to defend, wherein they inter alia set up many pleas. The court while examining the application permitted the defendants to contest the case against which the petitioner has come up in revision. He has contended that the trial court while granting leave to defend has not followed the procedure as provided under the law.

¶14

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it may be observed that after examining the detailed facts recorded in the application, the court, after due application of mind, had allowed the petitioner to defend the case. The court with a view to impart complete justice to the parties has not indulged into intricacies of law as in this case. It is the subjective satisfaction of the court to find out if the leave to defend was to be granted or not.

¶15

As regards the procedure, plaintiff also appears to have not followed the procedure. If the case is now sent back to the court for following the procedure, then it would take long time for disposal of the

¶16

Civil Revision No. 7318 of 2011

¶17

-2-

¶18

¶19

application for leave to defend. No detailed order was required to be passed for granting leave to defend in such cases. Since the case has arisen out of the dishonouring of the cheque of heavy amount and it is still to be determined as to whether it falls within the purview of Order XXXVII of CPC or not, the permission could not be declined.

¶20

Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed.

¶21

November 29, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge

Cheminova India Ltd. v. M/S Gurshakti Enterprises and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cheminova India Ltd. v. M/S Gurshakti Enterprises and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uhbvnl etc. Vs Inder Singh

Kavita Arora Vs State Bank of India

(O&M)Suresh Kumar and Another Vs Shiv Kumar

Bhikhu Vs Thakar Dowara Bhagwan Narain Ji

Gurbax Singh Th. Gpa Balwinder Singh Vs Punjab and Sind Bank and Ors.

Karam Singh Vs Hardev Singh and Ors.