https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378439 A summary suit under Order XXXVII may proceed where the claim is supported by banking records and concerns identifiable monetary transactions rather than an unascertained demand. Limitation cannot be rejected at the threshold when the plaintiffs plead later disclosure of the transactions and the issue turns on knowledge of the claim. Where the pleadings raise disputed factual questions about the alleged loan, ownership of land-linked payments, and the effect of nomination in bank accounts and FDRs, the court may refuse unconditional leave to defend and protect the claim by requiring security. A nominee may receive the deposit amount for receipt purposes, but nomination alone does not confer ownership. en-us Thu, 11 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Apr 2019 15:19:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378439 A summary suit under Order XXXVII may proceed where the claim is supported by banking records and concerns identifiable monetary transactions rather than an unascertained demand. Limitation cannot be rejected at the threshold when the plaintiffs plead later disclosure of the transactions and the issue turns on knowledge of the claim. Where the pleadings raise disputed factual questions about the alleged loan, ownership of land-linked payments, and the effect of nomination in bank accounts and FDRs, the court may refuse unconditional leave to defend and protect the claim by requiring security. A nominee may receive the deposit amount for receipt purposes, but nomination alone does not confer ownership. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 11 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378439