Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
His Honour Judge Rege, His Honour Judge S. K. Desai, JJ
Bombay Enamel Works – Appellant
Versus
Purshottam S. Somaiya – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction to the appeal and factual context (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. defendants contend for leave to extend deposit time (Para 5 , 6 , 10 , 14) |
| 3. legal standards governing summary suits (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. dispute over defendants' financial capabilities (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. discretion in granting leave to defend (Para 15 , 28) |
| 6. importance of reason-giving in judicial decisions (Para 37 , 49) |
1. This is an appeal filed by the original defendants against the decree passed against them by the Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay, in Summary Suit No. 8471 of 1968.
2. It is necessary to notice the relevant facts and circumstances in order to decide the contentions raised in this appeal. The respondent. Purshottam S. Somaiya (who will hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff) filed Summary Suit No. 8471 of 1968 against the appellants the Bombay Enamel Works, a firm carrying on business at Ravi Industries Compound, Agra Road, Thana, (who will hereinafter be referred to as "the Defendants"). The said suit was a summary suit under O. 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, as amended by the Bombay High Court and was based on 5 Hundies executed by the defendants und
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
