Back
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
VIBHU BAKHRU, TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, JJ
CHANDER BHALLA – Appellant
Versus
RAJEEV BHATNAGAR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. loan agreement details (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appellant's contentions (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. analysis of leave to defend (Para 8) |
| 4. principles for leave to defend (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. court's directive (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Present appeal has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) 619/2022 titled Chander Bhalla vs. Rajeev Bhatnagar filed by the appellant, vide which the application of the respondent under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) Civil Procedure Code , 1908 (hereafter “ CPC ”) seeking leave to defend has been allowed, unconditionally.
(a)It is the case of the appellant that the respondent is his distant relative who, being in dire need of funds, requested the appellant for a personal loan amounting to Rs.7.5 crores and offered to pay interest at 12% p.a. It is stated that the appellant advanced the said loan by RTGS and the cheques drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank during the period from 12.12.2017 to 26.03.2019, which were duly encashed by the respondent. It is also stated that besides the said loan, the respondent had taken another loan of Rs.2.5 crores from the company of the appellant namely M/s. Gr
The court emphasized that granting leave to defend is the norm, and defendants must raise genuine triable issues; failure to do so may result in conditions for leave.
A defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend if they satisfy the court that they have a substantial defence likely to succeed, or if they raise triable issues indicating a fair or reasona....
A defendant raising a triable issue is entitled to unconditional leave to defend in a summary suit, and courts should avoid imposing harsh conditions that may hinder the defendant's ability to contes....
A defendant in a summary suit is entitled to leave to defend if they raise plausible triable issues, even if the defense is not strong.
Point of Law - Court has considered the issue and confirmed the order passed by the learned trial court granting the application for leave to defend conditionally. All the rights and contentions of t....
Defendants failed to present a viable defense; allegations of collusion were unsubstantiated and deemed illusory, warranting denial of leave to defend under Order XXXVII of the CPC.
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.
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
