<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2003 (3) TMI 749 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197688</link>
    <description>In a summary suit, a series of invoices carrying printed terms, together with repeated dealings, written acknowledgments of liability and dishonoured cheques, can constitute a written contract sufficient to attract Order XXXVII CPC. The defendants&#039; documentary admissions and the statutory presumption arising from the dishonoured cheques meant their denial of liability was not a bona fide full defence, so leave to defend was granted only conditionally on deposit of the admitted amount with interest. Non-impleadment of the agent did not defeat the claim because the principal relationship was already apparent and the agent was not a necessary party on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2018 11:36:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504180" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 749 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197688</link>
      <description>In a summary suit, a series of invoices carrying printed terms, together with repeated dealings, written acknowledgments of liability and dishonoured cheques, can constitute a written contract sufficient to attract Order XXXVII CPC. The defendants&#039; documentary admissions and the statutory presumption arising from the dishonoured cheques meant their denial of liability was not a bona fide full defence, so leave to defend was granted only conditionally on deposit of the admitted amount with interest. Non-impleadment of the agent did not defeat the claim because the principal relationship was already apparent and the agent was not a necessary party on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197688</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>