Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Delhi High Court Grants Conditional Leave to Defend in Summary Suit Involving Rs. 2.81 Crores Dues Claim – Conditional Deposit of Principal Amount Ordered

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court today granted conditional leave to defend to the appellant, Abhay Kumar Jha, in a summary suit filed by M/S Bosch for the recovery of dues amounting to Rs. 2,81,92,694.16. The bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal, ordered the appellant to deposit the principal amount of Rs. 1,49,02,560.75 as a condition for granting leave to defend.

This ruling came as a response to the appellant’s appeal against the judgment dated 9th November 2023 by the learned Single Judge. The Single Judge had dismissed the application for leave to defend, filed under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in a suit based on three invoices for supply of goods and services.

The court observed, “The defence raised by the appellant may be ‘improbable’ but it still raises a possibility of its being correct.” This observation was pivotal in the decision to grant conditional leave to defend, despite acknowledging the respondent’s strong case for recovery of the claimed dues.

The bench also addressed the issue of pre-suit interest, stating that “Interest concerning pre-suit period could not have been awarded by the learned Single Judge in a summary proceeding.” This aspect of the case will be subject to trial, considering the appellant’s claim of non-receipt of the legal notice dated 26th June 2020.

The court directed the appellant to furnish a bank guarantee for the interest amount, as determined by the Registrar General, within a period of four weeks. Failure to comply with these conditions will result in judgment for the respondent as per the Single Judge’s decision.

Date of Decision:  31.01.2024

ABHAY KUMAR JHA  VS M/S BOSCH

Latest Legal News