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>Defendants' General Denial Deemed Insufficient under Civil Procedure Code</h1> <h3>M. Gordhandas and Co. Versus D. Arvind Mills</h3> M. Gordhandas and Co. Versus D. Arvind Mills - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the 2nd Defendants acted for and on behalf of the 1st Defendants as alleged in paragraph 6 of the plaint.Issue-wise Analysis:1. Whether the 2nd Defendants acted for and on behalf of the 1st Defendants as alleged in paragraph 6 of the plaint:The plaintiffs filed a suit to recover a money claim arising from an agreement regarding the export of art silk fabrics and the related import entitlement. The plaintiffs asserted in paragraph 6 of the plaint that the 2nd Defendants acted on behalf of the 1st Defendants in entering into the agreement. The 1st Defendants, in their written statement, issued a comprehensive denial of the allegations in paragraph 6 without specifically addressing the claim that the 2nd Defendants acted on their behalf.The plaintiffs contended that no issue arises from this denial, as the 1st Defendants did not specifically deny the authority of the 2nd Defendants to act on their behalf. The 1st Defendants argued that their comprehensive denial suffices as a specific denial under Order VIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that the written statement and accompanying correspondence imply a denial of the 2nd Defendants' authority.The court examined the statutory provisions of Order VIII, Rules 3, 4, and 5, and Order XIV, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 3 mandates that defendants must specifically address each allegation of fact they do not admit. Rule 4 requires that denials must not be evasive but must answer the point of substance. Rule 5 states that any fact not specifically denied or not admitted is deemed admitted, except against persons under disability. Order XIV, Rule 1 specifies that issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.The court referenced Subba Rao J.'s dissenting judgment in Badat & Co. v. East India Trading Co., which emphasized the need for specific denials of allegations forming the gist of the action. The court also considered English legal principles from Odgers on Pleading and Practice and Bullen & Leake's Precedents of Pleadings, which distinguish between general denials of introductory or consequential matters and specific denials of essential facts forming the cause of action.The court reviewed relevant case law, including Adkins v. The North Metropolitan Tramway Co., Lancaster Radiators v. Gen. Motor Radiator, and Warner v. Sampson, which supported the necessity of specific denials for essential facts. The court found that a general denial is insufficient for disputing essential facts that constitute the gist of the action.Applying these principles, the court concluded that the fact that the 2nd Defendants acted on behalf of the 1st Defendants is an essential part of the plaintiffs' cause of action. This fact should have been specifically denied if the 1st Defendants intended to dispute it. The comprehensive denial in paragraph 5 of the written statement did not amount to a specific denial or non-admission of this essential fact. Consequently, the court declined to raise an issue in terms of issue No. 5 of the draft issues submitted by the 1st Defendants.
TaxTMI 