UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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