Skip to main content

Ground for complaint in recovery matter does not vanish merely on defendant making payment during pendency of suit

In ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Vikas Kumar Thakur, RFA No. 901 of 2018, decided on 01-11-2018, appeal was filed before the Delhi High Court against the order of the trial court rejecting on the grounds that firstly, though the respondent/defendant during the pendency of the suit has made various payments, yet the appellant/plaintiff is not bringing the respondent/defendant to the Court and secondly, since the suit amount as claimed in the suit has vanished as by subsequent payment, cause of action as pleaded in the plaint has hence vanished.

The Delhi High Court has decided that the trial court has completely erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC because a defendant in the suit always during pendency of the suit can keep on making payments towards the amounts claimed in the suit, however, that does not mean that cause of action in the suit will vanish, but in such circumstances the Court under Order VII Rule 7 CPC will take notice of the subsequent events of repayments and the court will amend the suit amount and only pass a judgment and decree decreeing the suit for a lesser amount after giving adjustment to the respondent/defendant for the amounts which are paid during the pendency of  the suit by the respondent/defendant, and as reflected from the account and other evidence filed by the appellant/plaintiff.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Winding-Up Petition Can’t Be Used If Bona Fide Payment Disputes Pending

The Karnataka High Court, in the case of M/s Uttam Industrial Engineering Ltd vs  M/s Shree Basaveshwar Sugars Ltd, has held that a winding-up petition has serious  ramifications on the financial standing of a company and cannot be used in cases  where there is a bona fide dispute regarding the amount owed by one party to the  other and in such cases the company court should relegate the matter either to the  civil court or arbitral tribunal. In this case, Uttam Industrial Ltd entered into a contract with Basaveshwar Sugars Ltd  to provide machinery and equipment for a sugar plant. Article referred:  http://www.livelaw.in/remedy-winding-petition-cant-relied-upon-bona-fide-payment-disputes-karnataka-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

A liquidator must pay GST on sale of assets of a defunct company

The West Bengal Authority of Advance Ruling has ruled that a National Company Law Tribunal appointed liquidator must have the GST registration till all liabilities cease to exist and that the liquidator must pay goods and services tax (GST) on sale of assets of a defunct company under liquidation, as the sale is effectively supply of goods. 
Post a Comment
Read more