Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Main Points and Insights:
The case involves Kashyap and Sons Ltd. versus M/s JMS Steels and Power Corporation, with multiple references to judicial decisions, notably the Supreme Court judgment in B L Kashyap & Sons Ltd. v. JMS Steels & Power Corporation (2022) 3 SCC 294 ["M/S VITTAL CASHEW INDUSTRIES vs TROPICAL INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD - Karnataka"], ["B.L. KASHYAP AND SONS LTD. vs M/S JMS STEELS AND POWER CORPORATION - Supreme Court"], ["ADYAH BIZOLUTIONS V/s M/S BLA PACKAGING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. - Gujarat"], ["B.L. KASHYAP AND SONS LTD. vs M/S JMS STEELS AND POWER CORPORATION - Supreme Court"].
In the context of valuation and duty, the courts have examined whether the LDT remains unchanged at the time of importation, with supporting evidence like survey reports and certificates ["Commissioner of Customs, Bhavnagar VS Lucky Steel Industries - Custom Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal"], ["Commissioner of Customs, Bhavnagar VS Lucky Steel Industries - Custom Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
The case of Kashyap and Sons Ltd. versus JMS Steels & Power Corporation highlights the importance of judicial discretion in granting leave to defend, with the Supreme Court asserting that such leave should not be denied lightly ["B.L. KASHYAP AND SONS LTD. vs M/S JMS STEELS AND POWER CORPORATION - Supreme Court"].
References:- ["B.L. KASHYAP AND SONS LTD. vs M/S JMS STEELS AND POWER CORPORATION - Supreme Court"]- ["B.L. KASHYAP AND SONS LTD. vs M/S JMS STEELS AND POWER CORPORATION - Supreme Court"]- ["ADYAH BIZOLUTIONS V/s M/S BLA PACKAGING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. - Gujarat"]- ["RAJVEER SHARMA vs STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI & ANR. - Delhi"]- ["Naveen Gupta VS Vikas Jindal - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["B.L. KASHYAP AND SONS LTD. vs M/S JMS STEELS AND POWER CORPORATION - Supreme Court"]- ["Commissioner of Customs, Bhavnagar VS Lucky Steel Industries - Custom Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal"]- ["M/S VITTAL CASHEW INDUSTRIES vs TROPICAL INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD - Karnataka"]- ["B.L. KASHYAP AND SONS LTD. vs M/S JMS STEELS AND POWER CORPORATION - Supreme Court"]- ["Commissioner of Customs, Bhavnagar VS Lucky Steel Industries - Custom Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal"]- ["Sushil Maan vs Rajesh Rana - Delhi"]- ["Sushil Maan VS Rajesh Rana - Delhi"]- ["PAWAN VERMA vs SARDAR MANMOHAN SINGH - Delhi"]- ["Kumar Manglam vs Manik Lal Rauth - Delhi (2022)"]- ["Commissioner of Customs, Bhavnagar VS Lucky Steel Industries - Custom Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal"]- ["B.L. KASHYAP AND SONS LTD. vs M/S JMS STEELS AND POWER CORPORATION - Supreme Court"]
In the fast-paced world of commercial litigation, summary suits under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, offer plaintiffs a quicker path to recovery for debts or liquidated demands. However, defendants often seek leave to defend to present their side. A pivotal question arises: B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd vs MS JMS Steel & Power Corporation – what principles govern the grant of unconditional leave to defend? This case, decided by the Supreme Court of India, clarifies that defendants are generally entitled to unconditional leave if they raise a substantial, bona fide defense, with denial reserved for sham or frivolous claims. This blog post breaks down the judgment, its implications, and related judicial trends.
Note: This article provides general information based on publicly available judgments and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for specific cases.
The Supreme Court in this landmark case emphasized that the grant of unconditional leave to defend is the rule, while denial is the exception. Courts must not shut out a defendant who discloses a substantial, fair, and bona fide defenseSharda Singh VS Vijay Kumar Rastogi - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1505. The ruling reaffirms that even a defense raising a triable issue warrants unconditional leave, preventing misuse of summary procedures Deepanshu Goel VS Vijay Trading Co. - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 5727.
Key takeaway: The purpose of Order 37 is efficiency, but not at the cost of natural justice. Defendants with plausible defenses get a full trial opportunity.
Under Order 37 Rule 3(5), defendants apply for leave to defend within 10 days of summons. The court grants:- Unconditional leave if the defense is substantial and bona fide.- Conditional leave (e.g., deposit of principal amount) if partially meritorious.- No leave if sham, frivolous, or vexatious.
The Court held: The defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend unless it is demonstrated that the defense is frivolous, sham, or moonshine Sharda Singh VS Vijay Kumar Rastogi - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1505. This aligns with precedents like Mechelec Engineers, stressing triable issues over conclusive proof at this stage Deepanshu Goel VS Vijay Trading Co. - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 5727.
A defense need not be positively good but must indicate merits worth trial. Courts assess:- Whether it raises a fair and reasonable contest.- Genuineness, avoiding delay tactics Aparna Choudhrie Kala VS Vaibhav Kala - 2024 0 Supreme(Del) 258.
As stated: Even a defense that is not positively good but indicates a triable issue on merits should entitle the defendant to unconditional leave Deepanshu Goel VS Vijay Trading Co. - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 5727.
Courts must scrutinize defenses rigorously but fairly. Denial requires concrete evidence of sham nature, not conjecture. For instance:- Sham/moonshine: Lacking substance, mere moonshine.- Vexatious: Intended to harass or delay.
The judgment cautions: The courts should not deny such leave unless the defense is sham, frivolous, or vexatious Deepanshu Goel VS Vijay Trading Co. - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 5727. In practice, superficial rejections are discouraged.
This case stemmed from a Delhi High Court appeal (RFA 402/2018) involving recovery claims against B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd (defendant no. 2) and JMS Steels (defendant no. 1). Invoices named Kashyap as consignee at JMS's site, leading to joint liability disputes B.L. KASHYAP & SONS LTD vs M/S JMS STEEL & POWER CORPORATION & ANR. The Supreme Court (SLP(C) No. 19413/2018) upheld principles favoring defendants with triable defenses B.L. KASHYAP AND SONS LTD. vs M/S JMS STEELS AND POWER CORPORATION.
The ruling's influence extends widely:- In a Punjab & Haryana High Court matter, it supported rejecting a plaint dismissal under Order VII Rule 11(a): While deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, reference has to be made only to the plaint and the documents filed along with the plaint Transasia Private Capital Limited VS Parmanand Agarwal - 2022 Supreme(Del) 656. The court cited B.L. Kashyap alongside IDBI Trusteeship to affirm no merit in technical rejections.- Another Delhi High Court order referenced it in execution and jurisdiction contexts under CPC Sections 10, 13, 44A, stressing admitted liabilities bar weak defenses Transasia Private Capital Limited VS Parmanand Agarwal - 2022 Supreme(Del) 656.- In tender disputes, while not directly related, similar scrutiny of bids echoed fairness principles Cube Construction Engineering Ltd. VS National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. - 2019 Supreme(Del) 2353.
These citations show the case's role in balancing summary proceedings with equity Honeywala Industries VS Arun Kumar Jhoshi - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 1166.
Unconditional leave isn't automatic. Exceptions include:- No defense or moonshine: Straight decree.- Delay tactics: Conditional terms like deposit Kumar Manglam vs Manik Lal Rauth - Delhi (2022).
Courts may impose conditions if triable but weak: Courts have to carefully examine whether the defense is genuine and substantial, and not merely an attempt to delay proceedings Honeywala Industries VS Arun Kumar Jhoshi - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 1166.
Consistent Supreme Court views reinforce: Grant leave liberally for reasonable defenses. Trends from related cases:- Avoid anti-arbitration injunctions without exceptional circumstances (analogous fairness) LMJ International Limited VS Sleepwell Industries Co. Ltd. - 2012 Supreme(Cal) 890.- In motor accident claims, evidence scrutiny mirrors defense evaluation Nervin Lourdes Miranda VS Mahesh D. Naik - 2010 Supreme(Bom) 833.
Overall, post-B.L. Kashyap, lower courts lean toward trials over decrees on doubtful defenses STRONGBUILD CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., THR. DIRECTORS, MUMBAI AND OTHERS vs B.R. AGRAWAL TIMBERS AND SUPPLIERS THR. PROP. MANJU BRAJRATAN AGRAWAL, NAGPUR THR. B.J. AGRAWAL.
For defendants in Order 37 suits:- File promptly: Within 10 days, with affidavit disclosing full defense.- Substantiate claims: Attach documents proving triable issues.- Avoid technicalities: Focus on merits, not jurisdiction ploys unless strong.
For plaintiffs:- Prove prima facie case robustly.- Expect scrutiny if defense appears bona fide.
Courts: Lean towards granting unconditional leave... possibly with conditions such as deposit of amounts Kumar Manglam vs Manik Lal Rauth - Delhi (2022).
The B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd vs JMS Steels & Power Corporation judgment solidifies that Order 37 CPC prioritizes justice over speed. Unconditional leave is the norm for substantial defenses, curbing abuse while protecting genuine claims. As reaffirmed: The rule favors granting leave unless the defense is clearly frivolous or sham Sharda Singh VS Vijay Kumar Rastogi - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1505Deepanshu Goel VS Vijay Trading Co. - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 5727.
Stay informed on evolving CPC interpretations. For tailored guidance, seek professional legal counsel.
References:1. Sharda Singh VS Vijay Kumar Rastogi - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1505 – Core principles on unconditional leave.2. Deepanshu Goel VS Vijay Trading Co. - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 5727 – Triable issues and sham defenses.3. Aparna Choudhrie Kala VS Vaibhav Kala - 2024 0 Supreme(Del) 258 – Examining genuineness.4. Honeywala Industries VS Arun Kumar Jhoshi - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 1166 – Conditional leave standards.5. Kumar Manglam vs Manik Lal Rauth - Delhi (2022) – Judicial affirmations.6. B.L. KASHYAP AND SONS LTD. vs M/S JMS STEELS AND POWER CORPORATION, B.L. KASHYAP & SONS LTD vs M/S JMS STEEL & POWER CORPORATION & ANR – Case proceedings.7. Transasia Private Capital Limited VS Parmanand Agarwal - 2022 Supreme(Del) 656 – Order VII Rule 11 citations.
#Order37CPC, #LeaveToDefend, #SummarySuits
KASHYAP AND SONS LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S JMS STEELS AND POWER CORPORATION & ANR. Respondent(s) (I.A.
Kashyap and Sons Ltd. Vs. M/s. ... JMS Steels and Power Corporation and another arising out of SLP (C) No.19413 of 2018 on the question p style="position:absolute;white-space
AND SONS LTD v. ... M/S JMS STEELS AND POWER CORPORATION & ANR reported in 2022 LawSuit (SC) 42, wherein it was observed that the Appellant - defendant No.2 ought to have been granted the leave to defend the claim made in the suit concerning its liability - Impugned decree ... Learned Trial Court has also discussed the judgment against which the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of B L KASHYAP (supra) and also placed reliance upon the decision rendered in the case of SU....
Kashyap and Sons Ltd. Versus M/s JMS Steels and Power Corporation & Anr., 2002(1) RCR(Civil) 785 referred to by him in support of his contentions. 4.
Kashyap and Sons Limited v. JMS Steels and Power Corporation and Anr., reported as (2022) 3 SCC 294]. 9. ... Kashyap, and the fact that the abovementioned order was passed only on a leave to defend application, the contentions raised by the petitioner and his reliance on the grant of leave to defend, is entirely misplaced, I find no ground to entertain the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed
Versus M/S JMS STEEL & POWER CORPORATION & ANR. …. Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. ... Kashyap & Sons Limited. Even the consignee is the appellant/defendant no.2 in terms of these invoices except that the address is given as c/o the site of the respondent no. 2/defendant no.1. ... KASHYAP & SONS LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Mahajan, Advocate with Ms. Anubha Goel, Advocate and Mr. A. ... Moneys claimed by the....
Versus M/S JMS STEEL & POWER CORPORATION & ANR. …. Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. ... Kashyap & Sons Limited. Even the consignee is the appellant/defendant no.2 in terms of these invoices except that the address is given as c/o the site of the respondent no. 2/defendant no.1. ... KASHYAP & SONS LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Mahajan, Advocate with Ms. Anubha Goel, Advocate and Mr. A. ... Moneys claimed by the....
Saibaba Ship Breaking Corporation vide Order No. ... Lucky Steel Industries and Y.S. Investment under which purchase price of vessel was indicated as US$ 122 per one longer ton of LDT and US$ 133 per longer ton of LDT in the case of Lucky Steel Industries and Y.S. Investment respectively. ... of the vessel by agreeing to a particular amount per Ton of LDT and there is no change in the LDT at the time of importation. ... However, in the case of Lucky Steel#HL....
B.L.Kashyap & Sons Ltd. v. JMS Steels & Power Corpn., (2022) 3 SCC 294. 2. IDBI Trusteeship V.Hub Town Ltd., 2017(1) SCC 568. 3. ... On the other hand, the judgment cited in the case of B.L.Kashyap and Sons Limited (supra) is squarely applicable to the case on hand. ... Placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B.L.Kashyap & Sons Ltd .vs. ... Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2013) 9 SCC 32. 7 5. B.E.Simoese Von St....
Kashyap and Sons Ltd. Versus M/s JMS Steels and Power Corporation & Anr., 2002(1) RCR(Civil) 785 referred to by him in support of his contentions. 4.
Further, there is no merit in the application filed for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC and the same is liable to be rejected. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited Vs. Hubtown Limited, (2017) 1 SCC 568, and B.L. Kashyap and Sons Ltd. Vs. JMS Steels and Power Corporation and Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 59.
As per financial bid opening details (Appendix-3), M/s. B.L. Kashyap and Sons Ltd. have not submitted letter of PRICE BID and CD for the offer, as per ITB 22.1 and Stage 5 of Vol I (1/3) Pg 32. have not submitted letter of PRICE BID and CD for the offer, as per ITB 22.1 and Stage 5 of Vol I (1/3) Pg 32. (vi) All Forms and Price Schedules have not been altered. (vii) As per financial bid opening details (Appendix-3), M/s. B.L. Kashyap and Sons Ltd.
Even with respect to the cheques issued, though the cheques are issued by the respondent no.2/defendant no.1 yet an Order XXXVII CPC suit for the amount of cheques would also lie against the appellant/defendant no.2 because Order XXXVII Rule 1 CPC does not in any manner state that the cheques which are issued for payments have to be of the person against whom liability is claimed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant argues that suit was not maintainable under Order XXXVII CPC as the subject cheque was not presented for encashment, however, in my opinion, even if a cheque is not pr....
Mr. Bose has relied upon the following decisions for the proposition that the Civil Court would not pass an order of injunction to stay an arbitration proceeding: (a) 2012 (5) SCC 214 (Kvaerner Cementation India Ltd. Vs. Bajranglal Agarwal & Anr.); (b) 2010 (3) Mh.L.J 165 (JSW Steel Ltd.
As far as income from the salary is concerned, the witness Ms. Sandra Pereira was examined who was employed with M/s. B.L. Kashyap and Sons Pvt. Ltd. As far as income from the alleged partnership firm is concerned, there is no evidence. Considering the admission of the witness that the salary was paid in cash and she was not sure whether the payment of salary is reflected in the register, the Tribunal has not accepted that the salary payable to the deceased was Rs. 6,000/- per month. She stated that the deceased was employed as a Site Engineer from March, 2000 till 1st Augu....
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
