SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(Bom) 58

MODY
Central Bank of India – Appellant
Versus
Femme Pharma Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates:
P.P. Khambata, for Plaintiff; J.M. Patel, for Defendants.

ORDER :- Mr; Patel refers to R.227 of the High Court Original Side Rules 1980 and to R.220(4) of the Rules of 1957 and contends that I must place the suit on board for dismissal and must dismiss the same. He lays that under the old rule the Court had discretion to dismiss or not to dismiss the suit depending on whether sufficient cause is shown or not, while under the present rule there is no such discretion vested in Court. In my view the position is actually to the contrary.

2. Under the old rules, the Court's discretion was limited to sufficient cause being shown and if it was not shown the suit had to be dismissed. As against this the present rule only provides that the suit shall be placed on board for dismissal but it does not provide as to what is to happen thereafter. In my view the Court will, therefore, have a wider discretion now than before and the, Court is not bound to dismiss the suit.

3. Application is rejected, particularly, in view of the fact that the summons for judgment is now taken out, even before the matter could be notified for being placed on board for dismissal.

4. In view of the fact that the summons or judgment has been taken out after such delay, uncond

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top