Back
RAJIV SHAKDHER, AMIT BANSAL
Bela Creation Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Jai Durga Traders Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
1. On the previous date i.e., 10.01.2024 we had heard the matter at length.
2. The record shows that notice was issued in the appeal by the coordinate bench on 19.10.2022.
2.1. On the said date, the coordinate bench stayed the impugned judgment dated 22.02.2022 whereby conditional leave to defend was granted, subject to the appellant depositing Rs.15 lakhs with the Registrar General of this court within six (06) weeks.
3. It is not disputed by the counsel for the appellant that the said sum has not been deposited by the appellant.
3.1. It is in this context that nearly one year and three months later, an application was moved seeking permission to deposit the money.
3.2. This application came up before the court on 10.01.2024 when, it was dismissed as withdrawn.
4. However, insofar as the appeal was concerned, the following was observed by the Court on 10.01.2024:
"3. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.02.2022, which granted conditional leave to defend the suit action. It is not in dispute that in the meantime a final judgment and decree dated 24.05.2022 has been passed.
4. It is also not in
The court found that due to the circumstances, nothing survived in the appeal and there were no good reasons to entertain it, leading to its dismissal.
The court upheld that failure to comply with the deposit requirement negated the appellant's claims of fraud regarding the cheques, justifying the trial court's decree in favor of the respondent.
The court may consider the financial incapacity of a party and the interest of justice in directing the deposit of a specified amount to contest a suit.
Failure to comply with court orders leads to dismissal of the petition.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of the court is circumscribed under Rule 5(5) of Order 41 C.P.C., and non-compliance with the direction of the court under Order 41 ....
A party may file a subsequent application even after an earlier application is dismissed for technical reasons, provided the underlying obligations remain.
The Court emphasized that the Tribunal should not take a hyper-technical approach and should consider appeals on their merits, especially when the petitioner was ready with the required amount on the....
Failure to comply with court ordered deposit justifies dismissal of the original petition.
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
