Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. Chandrachud, CJI., D.A.Desai, E.S.Venkataramiah, JJ.
Mehta Teja Singh And Company
Versus
Grindlays Bank Limited
Case No., 648 of 1980
Date of Decision, 3/20/80
Decretal Amount – Balance – Appeal against order - Court however find it somewhat difficult to appreciate that High court Should have granted stay of a money decree and that too by requiring appellant before it respondent herein - Bank Ltd - To deposit only a part of decretal amount - Court therefore direct that respondent shall deposit in High court, within four weeks from today balance of decretal amount which Court are told is about Rs – Held, Court must mention that no notice was given to respondent of this matter and Mr appearing on behalf of appellant draw our attention pointedly to this fact - Court do not however think that respondent is likely to object to order which Court have passed - If respondent feels aggrieved by order it will be at liberty to apply to us for its reconsideration – Appeal is Disposed of
(1) HEARD counsel. Special leave granted.
(2) IT is true that the appeal is directed against an order passed by the High court, which is of an interlocutory nature. We, however, find it somewhat difficult to appreciate that the High court Should have granted stay of a money decree, and that too, by requiring the appellant before it (respondent herein) - Grindlays Bank Ltd. - to deposit only a part of the decretal amount. We, therefore, direct that the respondent shall deposit in the High court, within four weeks from today, the balance of the decretal amount which we are told is about Rs. 1,10,000.00 (Rupees one lakh and ten thousand). The appellant M/s Mehta Teja Singh and Co. will be at liberty to withdraw the said amount on furnishing Bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Prothonotary of the High court.
(3) WE must mention that no notice was given to the respondent of this matter and Mr Sorabji, appearing on behalf of the appellant, draw our attention pointedly to this fact. We do not, however, think that the respondent is likely to object to the order which we have passed. If the respondent feels aggrieved by the order, it will be at liberty to apply to us for its reconsideration.
(4) MR Sorabji agrees to serve a copy of this Order on the respondent as also on the respondents advocate in the High court.
(5) THE appeal shall stand disposed of in terms of this order.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
