Skip to main content

Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC: Plaint Can Either Be Rejected As A Whole Or Not At All

IN CIVIL APPEAL OF 2019, Madhav Prasad Aggarwal vs Axis Bank Ltd., the respondent bank gave loan facility to builder against a projec against mortgage of project property. The appellants had purchased flat in the said project and have been paying instalments and were in possession of letter of allotments and other correspondences but not registered deeds. The plaintiffs on becoming aware of the loan facility, filed a suit to force the builder to complete the project, reject the loan etc. and arrayed the respondent bank as a defendant. The respondent No.1­bank (defendant No.15) appeared in
the concerned suit and filed a notice of motion to reject the plaint against the bank, in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC on the ground that the suit(s) against the said respondent would be barred by provisions of Section 34 of SARFAESI Act. The bank's application was rejected by the Single Judge of the High Court holding that the facts of the present case clearly indicate that the cause of action and the reliefs claimed by the concerned plaintiff(s) fell within the excepted category and the bar under Section 34 read with Section 17 of SARFAESI Act would be no impediment in adjudicating the subject matter of the concerned suit. The Single Judge also rejected the argument/objection raised by the appellant(s) that it is impermissible to reject the plaint only against one of the defendant(s), in exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC by relying on the decision of the Division Bench of the same High Court in M.V. “Sea Success I” Vs. Liverpool and London Steamship Protection and Indemnity Association Ltd. and Ors. The bank's appeal against the order of the Single Judge was allowed by the Divisional Bench.

On appeal, the Supreme Court accepted the argument of the plaintiff and their reliance on the judgment in Sejal Glass Limited Vs. Navilan Merchants Private Limited, that the plaint cannot be rejected only against one of the defendant(s) but it could be rejected as a whole.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

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

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more