TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court allows defendant to defend in summary suit; document invalid due to stamp duty issues. Order set aside.</h1> <h3>Yogendra Patwardhan Versus Khandelwal Hermann Electronics.</h3> Yogendra Patwardhan Versus Khandelwal Hermann Electronics. - TMI Issues:1. Admissibility of the document in a summary suit.2. Validity of the document in terms of stamp duty.3. Nature of the document - contract or bond.4. Interpretation of Order 37, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.5. Granting of unconditional leave to defend.Analysis:The judgment involves a revision application filed by the defendant against an order granting conditional leave to defend a suit based on a written undertaking. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant breached the undertaking by resigning from employment immediately after returning from a fair in West Germany. The defendant contended that the tour was for sightseeing, not learning, and he signed the undertaking under compulsion. Additionally, the defendant argued that the document was not properly stamped, raising a question of admissibility.The court highlighted the distinction between an ordinary suit and a summary suit. In a summary suit, the document itself must be admissible and actionable. The court emphasized that if a document in a summary suit is not admissible due to stamp duty issues, the suit cannot proceed. The court noted that the document, termed as an undertaking, was essentially a contract or bond, attracting stamp duty, making it invalid for a summary suit under the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958.Furthermore, the court discussed Order 37, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows for summary suits on specific instruments or debts. The court clarified that a summary suit must strictly adhere to the provisions of Order 37, Rule 1, and any extension beyond its scope is impermissible. In this case, the document did not fall within the permissible items for a summary suit, further supporting the defendant's argument for unconditional leave to defend.Ultimately, the court set aside the previous order and granted the defendant unconditional leave to defend the suit. The defendant was directed to file a written statement within twelve weeks, and usual orders for discovery and inspection were issued. The judgment concluded by making the rule absolute with no order as to costs, emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to the legal provisions governing summary suits.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
