Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for United Bank Of India, Calcutta VS Abhijit Tea Company Private LTD. ...
2000 6 Supreme 183 : Under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, when a counter-claim is raised by a defendant in a suit filed by a bank or financial institution, the counter-claim may be treated as a cross-suit and disposed of simultaneously with the main suit by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Section 19(8) to (11) of the Act equates the term ''''counter-claim'''' to a ''''cross-suit'''', and such a counter-claim may include claims even if made in an independent suit filed earlier. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide both the original claim and the counter-claim together. If a particular counter-claim cannot be decided by the Tribunal, the applicant (e.g., the bank) may apply for its exclusion, and the Tribunal may order the defendant to file an independent action. However, in cases where the counter-claim is interconnected with the main suit, both suits are to be transferred to and tried by the Tribunal. The pendency of a counter-claim in another court does not prevent the transfer of the main suit to the Tribunal.Checking relevance for Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. VS Afcons Gunanusa JV...
2022 0 Supreme(SC) 878 : A court or arbitral tribunal may dispose of both a claim and a counter-claim in the same proceeding. The counter-claim is treated as an independent proceeding, not a mere defense, and can be adjudicated upon even if the original claim is dismissed or withdrawn. The claim and counter-claim are considered distinct and separate proceedings, with their own procedural timelines and requirements. The tribunal has the authority to decide both claims simultaneously to prevent multiplicity of litigation. Under Section 23(2-A) of the Arbitration Act, a counter-claim must fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. The tribunal may also fix separate deposits for the claim and counter-claim, and proceedings may be terminated only in respect of the claim or counter-claim for which the deposit has not been paid. The counter-claim remains alive and can be pursued independently of the original claim.Checking relevance for Laximdas Dayabhai Kabrawala VS Nanabhai Chunilal Aabrawala...
1963 0 Supreme(SC) 90 : A court may treat a counter-claim as a plaint in a cross-suit and hear the original suit and the counter-claim together, provided the counter-claim is properly stamped. This power exists even if the counter-claim does not fully conform to the formal requirements of a plaint, as long as it contains sufficient elements to be treated as a claim for relief. The court has discretion to convert a counter-claim into a cross-suit, particularly when the pleading, though labeled as a counter-claim, effectively functions as a plaint. This approach is permissible under the Civil Procedure Code, and no statutory provision prohibits such treatment. However, the court''''s discretion must be exercised judicially, and the decision to allow such conversion should not cause undue hardship to either party. The court may also impose terms on the defendant if the conversion is granted after a long delay.Checking relevance for Indian Bank VS ABS Marine Products Pvt. LTD. ...
2006 3 Supreme 647 : A borrower or defendant cannot be compelled to file a counter-claim in a bank''''s debt recovery application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and may instead file an independent suit in a civil court for relief against the bank. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try independent suits filed by borrowers against banks. Even if a bank seeks to transfer such an independent suit to the Tribunal, the transfer is not mandatory and cannot be enforced against the borrower''''s wishes. The only mechanism for disposing of both the bank''''s claim and the borrower''''s claim in a single proceeding is if the borrower voluntarily files a counter-claim in the bank''''s application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. This counter-claim must be filed before the defendant delivers his defence or before the time for delivering the defence expires. The Tribunal may then decide both claims together. However, if the borrower chooses not to file a counter-claim, the civil court retains jurisdiction over the independent suit, and the Tribunal cannot transfer it. The decision in Abhijit case (2000) is not binding as a legal principle but was an exceptional direction under Article 142 of the Constitution, not a ratio decidendi.Checking relevance for Bank Of Rajasthan Ltd. VS VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd. ...
2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1140 : Under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, a defendant in a recovery proceeding before a Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) may file a counter-claim against the bank''''s claim. This counter-claim, if made within the time limit for delivering the defence, has the same effect as a cross-suit and enables the Tribunal to pass a final order on both the original claim and the counter-claim. The Tribunal may also decide whether a counter-claim should be disposed of in the same proceeding or in an independent action. Thus, a defendant may dispose of their case and counter-case before the same court (DRT) by filing a counter-claim in the written statement, which will be adjudicated alongside the original application.
