https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82815 The Court dismissed the defendants' applications seeking leave to defend the suit, as their defence was found to be frivolous, vexatious, and without any merit. The defendants admitted their liability to repay the amount claimed by the plaintiff but contended that the repayment was contingent upon an uncertain future event, solely at their discretion. The Court held that admitting liability while claiming non-repayment based on their inability to pay at their sole discretion is a moonshine defence. As the defendants failed to disclose any substantial or genuine defence, leave to defend was rightly refused under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of the CPC. The denial of leave is an exception when the defendant has practically no defence or raises only frivolous and vexatious issues without any semblance of triable issues. en-us Wed, 06 Nov 2024 08:34:25 +0530 Wed, 06 Nov 2024 08:34:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82815 The Court dismissed the defendants' applications seeking leave to defend the suit, as their defence was found to be frivolous, vexatious, and without any merit. The defendants admitted their liability to repay the amount claimed by the plaintiff but contended that the repayment was contingent upon an uncertain future event, solely at their discretion. The Court held that admitting liability while claiming non-repayment based on their inability to pay at their sole discretion is a moonshine defence. As the defendants failed to disclose any substantial or genuine defence, leave to defend was rightly refused under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of the CPC. The denial of leave is an exception when the defendant has practically no defence or raises only frivolous and vexatious issues without any semblance of triable issues. Highlights Indian Laws Wed, 06 Nov 2024 08:34:25 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82815