VINEET SARAN, DINESH MAHESHWARI
B. L. Kashyap and Sons Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
JMS Steels and Power Corporation – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
Preliminary
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.05.2018 in Regular First Appeal No. 402 of 2018, whereby the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi has dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant and has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge-05: West, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi, in the money recovery summary suit, being CivDj/611333/2016, filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, wherein the present appellant was arrayed as defendant No. 2 and the present respondent No. 2 was arrayed as defendant No. 1.
2.1. It may be noticed at the outset that the Trial Court had passed the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2017 with its finding that no triable issues had been raised by the defendants and hence, they were not entitled to the leave to defend. In the impugned judgment and order dated 11.05.2018, the High Court has affirmed the decree in relation to the appellant-defendant No. 2. Hence, the questions involved in the present appeal are confined to the prayer for leave to defend sought for by the appellant. However, it is also relevant to notice that the other d
IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. v. Hubtown Ltd.: (2017) 1 SCC 568 – Relied [Para 6]
Prem Nath Motors Limited v. Anurag Mittal: (2009) 16 SCC 274 – Referred [Para 9.1]
V.K. Enterprises v. Shiva Steels: (2010) 9 SCC 256 – Referred [Para 9.2]
No cases in the provided list explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law. While multiple references are made to the same case (JMS Steels and Power Corporation, (2022) 3 SCC 294) and to various judgments involving Kashyap and Sons Limited, there is no clear language or context suggesting that any of these decisions have been overruled or discredited in subsequent rulings. Therefore, no case is definitively identified as bad law based solely on the provided information.
JMS Steels and Power Corporation, (2022) 3 SCC 294: This case appears repeatedly and is cited as a key reference, indicating it is treated as authoritative and followed in subsequent discussions. Multiple entries (e.g., Fox Mandal And Co. And Another VS Ravi Bishnoi And Another - 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 1261, Suyog Happy Homes VS Sujeet Ramesh Patil - Bombay (2022), Honeywala Industries VS Arun Kumar Jhoshi - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 1166, Dineshbhai Khimjibhai Patel VS Pareshbhai Devilal Sankhesara - Current Civil Cases (2023), Cherry Agarwal VS Omprakash Gupta - Current Civil Cases (2023), Mohd. Anwar VS Parvez Ahmad - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 5604, D. Pratish, also called, Pratish Vedhapuddi VS Prerna Finance Rep. by its Propreitrix Prerna Bafna - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2170) show reliance on this case, suggesting it is considered good law and binding precedent.
Kashyap and Sons Limited v. JMS Steels and Power Corporation (various citations): The case is frequently cited, sometimes with references to principles laid down, indicating it is treated as an important and authoritative decision.
B.L. Kashyap and Sons Limited v. JMS Steels and Power Corporation: Mentioned in context with recent judgments and in affirmations, indicating it is considered good law and relevant in current legal discourse.
The references to IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Hubtown Ltd., and related cases suggest these are used as supporting or comparative authority, generally treated as established law.
Some references (e.g., CHANDER BHALLA Vs RAJEEV BHATNAGAR - 2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 149, CHANDER BHALLA Vs RAJEEV BHATNAGAR - 2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 149) mention reliance on previous judgments to clarify principles or for justice, but do not indicate that the cases themselves have been criticized or overruled.
The mention of M/s. QVC Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Mechelec Engineers & Manufactures in paragraph 54.24 appears in the context of citing previous judgments, but no explicit criticism or overruling is indicated.
The case of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd is referenced as a "useful reference," but this does not imply criticism or overruling.
Several entries (e.g., Posco Poggenamp Electrical Steel Pvt. Ltd. VS Tbea Energy (India) Pvt. Ltd. - 2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 456, Ansal Housing Ltd. VS Samyak Projects Pvt. Ltd. - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 646, Teleysia Networks Pvt Ltd. VS Prithvi Information Solution Ltd. - 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 116, Samala Venu VS Flycon Blocks Pvt. Limited - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 208, Priya Daniel VS Jayam Nagesh - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 181) reference judgments and principles but do not specify treatment as overruled or bad law. Their treatment remains ambiguous without explicit language.
The repeated references to the same case (JMS Steels and Power Corporation, (2022) 3 SCC 294) across multiple entries suggest it is highly relevant, but whether it has been overruled or criticized is unclear from the context provided.
The references to principles for granting leave to defend (e.g., V. K. Enterprises VS Shiva Steels - 2010 6 Supreme 180, IDBI TRUSTEESHIP SERVICES LTD. VS HUBTOWN LTD. - 2016 8 Supreme 194) are procedural and do not indicate treatment of specific cases as bad law.
The mention of "authority" in some entries (CHANDER BHALLA Vs RAJEEV BHATNAGAR - 2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 149, CHANDER BHALLA Vs RAJEEV BHATNAGAR - 2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 149) indicates reliance or clarification, but not treatment as bad law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.