Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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