Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
, CJ
Dena Bank – Appellant
Versus
Ironside Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case including jurisdictional facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding leave under cl.xii and jurisdiction. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. court's observations on the necessity to assess drawing of the instrument. (Para 11) |
| 4. final ruling on the notice of motion. (Para 14 , 15) |
1. Although formally this is an Order passed in Notice of Motion dt. 20th Dec. 1966 in Summary Suit No. 439 of 1966, the decision and the observations will also govern similar question arising in Summary Suit No. 534 of 1966. We are informed that the position in the two suits is identical. This Notice of Motion was made returnable before a single Judge, but by an under dt. 13th April, 1967 the Motion was referred to a Division Bench as the single Judge felt that there could be a conflict between certain decisions of this Court. Anyway he opined that the matter was of sufficient importance to warrant a decision by the Division Bench. The Motion has subsequently been assigned to this Bench by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice.
2. By the Motion the defendants seek to set aside and revoke the leave granted to the plaintiffs under Cl.XII of the Letters Patent.
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
