<?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>2024 (6) TMI 707 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754100</link>
    <description>Leave to defend in a summary suit is refused where the defendant shows no bona fide defence or genuine triable issue and the defence appears sham or illusory. The defendant did not dispute receipt of the principal amount or the issuance and dishonour of the cheques, and its claim that the cheques were only security, together with the allegation about retained title deeds, was unsupported by any counterclaim, separate proceeding, or substantiated loss. The objection to maintainability was rejected in light of the admitted financial accommodation and repayment liability. On these materials, the Court held that no real defence was made out and the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment and decree.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2024 13:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=756662" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 707 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754100</link>
      <description>Leave to defend in a summary suit is refused where the defendant shows no bona fide defence or genuine triable issue and the defence appears sham or illusory. The defendant did not dispute receipt of the principal amount or the issuance and dishonour of the cheques, and its claim that the cheques were only security, together with the allegation about retained title deeds, was unsupported by any counterclaim, separate proceeding, or substantiated loss. The objection to maintainability was rejected in light of the admitted financial accommodation and repayment liability. On these materials, the Court held that no real defence was made out and the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment and decree.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754100</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>