Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Kamal Kumar Gupta VS Ajay Kumar Gupta - Current Civil Cases
"]: Emphasizes that compliance with Section 17(1) is a pre-condition for filing applications under Order IX Rule 13.Source ["2022 0 Supreme(All) 1172"]: Reiterates that no subsequent application is maintainable if the deposit is not made in compliance with Section 17(1).
Procedure and Consequences of Non-Compliance Courts have consistently held that the deposit must be made before or at the time of filing the application under Order IX Rule 13, and failure to do so results in the application's dismissal or the ex parte decree being upheld. The deposit acts as a pre-requisite for the court to entertain such applications.References:
Source ["
Kamal Kumar Gupta VS Ajay Kumar Gupta - Current Civil Cases
"]: Notes that compliance is a mandatory pre-condition for maintaining applications under Order IX Rule 13.Legal Position and Judicial View The courts have consistently held that Section 17's provisions are mandatory and cannot be waived or bypassed, emphasizing the importance of depositing the decretal amount to ensure the application’s maintainability. Even if the deposit is made later, the initial requirement remains a mandatory procedural step.References:
Kamal Kumar Gupta VS Ajay Kumar Gupta - Current Civil Cases
"], ["2022 0 Supreme(All) 1172"]: Agree on the mandatory nature of Section 17, with courts refusing to entertain applications lacking compliance.The consensus across the cited judicial authorities is that deposit of the decretal amount under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, is a mandatory procedural requirement. Non-compliance results in the dismissal of applications under Order IX Rule 13 CPC or the setting aside of ex parte decrees. The courts have consistently emphasized that this deposit is essential for the maintainability of applications, and failure to adhere to this requirement renders such applications not maintainable.References:- ["2023 2 Supreme 552"]- ["
Kamal Kumar Gupta VS Ajay Kumar Gupta - Current Civil Cases
"]- ["2022 0 Supreme(All) 1172"]
In legal proceedings, especially in , facing an can be daunting. A common question arises: In Not Necessary to Deposit 20 Percent Amount Provide Citation—wait, while queries often mix statutes like the NI Act, the core issue here revolves around Section 17 of the Provincial Act, 1887. Does it mandate depositing the or furnishing security when applying to set aside an under ? The answer, backed by judicial precedents, is a resounding yes—it's a strict precondition. This post breaks it down, explores key rulings, and contrasts with similar requirements in other laws.
Note: This is general information based on legal precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Section 17(1) of the Provincial Act, 1887, explicitly states in its proviso: Provided that an applicant for an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte or for a review of judgment shall, at the time of presenting his application, either deposit in the Court the amount due from him under the decree or in pursuance of the judgment, or give such or compliance with the judgment as the Court may, on a previous application made by him in this behalf, have directed. 2004 0 Supreme(All) 699
This language uses shall, signaling a mandatory requirement. Courts have consistently held that non-compliance renders the application incompetent, stripping the court of to entertain it. The purpose? To protect the by ensuring potential satisfaction of the decree if the application fails, curbing delay tactics. 1996 0 Supreme(All) 170 1991 0 Supreme(All) 759
The in Kedarnath vs. Mohan Lal Kesarwari (2002) affirmed: the proviso's language is mandatory, and deposit must occur at the time of filing. Subsequent deposit or belated efforts do not cure the defect. (paras 9-10) 2004 0 Supreme(All) 699
Other rulings echo this:- In Raj Kumar Makhija1997 0 Supreme(All) 648 and Smt. Sushma Agarwal2015 0 Supreme(All) 3611, non-compliance made applications not maintainable.- in cases like 1996 0 Supreme(All) 170 and 1991 0 Supreme(All) 759 ruled courts lack without initial compliance.- A recent case emphasized: the trial court rejected a delayed deposit application, upholding Section 17's mandatory nature under limits. 2019 0 Supreme(All) 886- Another held: Deposit of is mandatory while moving an application for recall of the ex-parte judgment and decree. 2019 0 Supreme(All) 340
These precedents underscore no judicial discretion to waive or condone at filing time.
While strict, limited exceptions exist:- Security Instead of Deposit: Possible via a previous application for court direction, filed before or with the main application. Belated requests fail. 2010 0 Supreme(All) 815- No Condonation: The proviso offers no leeway for extensions; post-filing deposits are insufficient unless pre-authorized.
Courts reinforce: The deposit of or furnishing of security is a strict, mandatory condition. Non-compliance leads to rejection. 1997 0 Supreme(All) 648
This mirrors mandatory deposits in other laws, highlighting a legislative trend to deter frivolous challenges:
Unlike these, Section 17 offers no percentage waiver—it's full deposit or security upfront.
To avoid dismissal:1. Deposit Immediately: Accompany your Order IX Rule 13 application with the full .2. Seek Prior Security Direction: File a separate application beforehand if deposit is infeasible.3. Document Everything: Retain proof of compliance to counter challenges.4. Act Promptly: Delays compound risks under .
Courts advise strict enforcement to prevent abuse. 2010 0 Supreme(All) 815
Under Section 17 of the Provincial Act, 1887, it is mandatory to deposit the or furnish security at the time of filing an application to set aside an . Failure invites rejection as incompetent. As affirmed across precedents like 2004 0 Supreme(All) 699, this safeguards decree-holders while streamlining justice.
Key Takeaways:- Mandatory at filing—no substitutes or delays.- Backed by and .- Similar to MSMED/SARFAESI pre-deposits, but fully stringent.
Stay informed, comply diligently, and seek professional guidance for your situation.
(Word count approx. 1050)
#SmallCausesAct #ExParteDecree #LegalDeposit
17. Section 16 of the Act confers authority on the Court and none other to deal with cases relating to mala fide transfers. ... 25/07/2024, by which the provisional order of attachment passed under Sub-Section (3) of Section 7 of the Act has been confirmed. ... No prejudice would be caused by the sale of the property because Section ....
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order IX Rule 13 – Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 – Section 17 – ... He also moved an application under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (‘the Act of 1887’), alongwith a tender seeking permission to deposit the decretal amount to the tune of Rs. 11,212/-, inclusive of the....
17 – All these three revisions arise out of suit proceedings of S.C.C. ... Code, 1908 – Order IX Rule 13 – Section 151 – Indian Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 –Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 – Section ... S.K. and Co. & Ors, wherein the court while upholding the view of learned Single Judge that section 17(1) of Act, 1887 was mandatory, no subsequent applicat....
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order IX Rule 13 – Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 – Section 17 ... (Paras 19, 24 and 39) (B) Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 – Section 17 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ... granted – Compliance of proviso to Section 17 is a pre-condition for maintainability of application under Order 9 Rule 13 – Application ... S.K. and Co. & Ors, wherein t....
Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (the Act) has been filed by respondents 48 and 50 in CMP No.7108/2023 on the file of the Designated Court (the Court), that is, the Court of Session Thalassery, aggrieved by the order dated 25/07/2024, by which the provisional order of ... No prejudice would be caused by the sale of the property because Section#....
Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (the Act) has been filed by respondents 48 and 50 in CMP No.7108/2023 on the file of the Designated Court (the Court), that is, the Court of Session Thalassery, aggrieved by the order dated 25/07/2024, by which the provisional order of ... No prejudice would be caused by the sale of the property because Section#....
Section 34 of the Act of 1996 ?'' 10. The issue in regard to mandatory deposit of 75% of the awarded amount under Section 19 are mandatory and deposit of 75% of the awarded amount was to be made before the objections under Section 34 were heard. ... The short controversy engaging attention of this Court#HL....
of 75% of the awarded amount as a pre-deposit is mandatory. ... It is stated by Mr Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has failed to comply with the mandatory provision of pre deposit as per section 19 of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ("MSMED Act") and hence the present petition under se....
under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act is permissible against the order passed by the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. ... The aforesaid order is passed by the High Court, after observing and concluding as under: “(a) Pre-deposit contemplated under the second proviso of Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is mandator....
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act - Section 17(2), (2A), (1), (2B), (3), (2A)(a) - Suit for declaration and ... 17(1) of act along with admitted arrear amount of rent - Impugned order passed by court below being order is hereby set aside - ... is payable amount of rent per month but he has not paid said amount as admitted arrear amount nor he has filed application under Section ... Where the tenant makes a composite applica....
But, to avoid mandatory requirement under Section 19 of MSMED Act, the present petition appears to have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which does not require any such deposit, as mandated under Section 19 of MSMED Act, inventing a story that, when a conciliation was made, the same conciliator cannot act as arbitrator by way of alternative dispute resolution process and in view of bar under Section 18 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Therefore, the mand....
The court below referring to the provisions contained under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 and the legal proposition with regard to mandatory nature of the said provision has rejected the application on the ground that the application seeking to deposit the decretal amount under Section 17 was beyond the prescribed time period. 3. The undisputed facts of the case are that the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was filed on 21.09.2017 seeking rec....
Mohan Lal Kesarwari and others 3 held that proviso to? Section 17 of the Act, 1887 is mandatory, an application seeking to set aside an ex-parte decree must be accompanied by a deposit in the court of the decretal amount. Section 17 of the Act of 1887 is being quoted below: The provision as to deposit can be dispensed with by the court in its discretion subject to a previous application by the applicant seeking direction of the court for leave to furnish security and the natu....
For the analysis and reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 27 April, 2015 passed by the first respondent in AIR No.640 of 2014 and remitting back the matter to the first respondent Appellate Tribunal to consider the issue afresh on its own merits in the light of the aforestated observations. It is for the Appellate Tribunal to examine the facts before coming to a conclusion as to whether the proposed appeal is filed by a person from....
8. A plain and literal construction of Section 17 of the Act shows that for presentation of an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC or review of the judgment, it shall be incumbent on the applicant to deposit in the court the amount due from him under decree or in pursuance of the judgment. The proviso to Section 17 of the Act at the face of record makes it obligatory to deposit the entire decretal amount.
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
