MADHAV PRASAD AGGARWAL & ANR. versus AXIS BANK LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 8 S.C.R. 1058 · Decided: 01-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1058
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
MADHAV PRASAD AGGARWAL & ANR.
v.
AXIS BANK LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 5126 of  2019)
JULY 01, 2019
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Order 7 Rule 11(d) – Rejection of plaint – Relief of rejection
of plaint, sought by one of the defendants – Permissibility – Held:
In exercise of powers u/Or. 7 r. 11(d) the plaint has to be rejected as
a whole or not at all – Such relief cannot be pursued only in respect
of one of the defendants – In the present case rejection of plaint
only qua respondent No. 1 by the High Court in exercise of powers
u/Or. 7 r. 11(d) was replete with jurisdictional error.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. The plaint can and must be rejected in exercise
of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC on account of non-
compliance of mandatory requirements or being replete with any
institutional deficiency at the time of presentation of the plaint,
ascribable to clauses (a) to (f) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of CPC. The
plaint as presented must proceed as a whole or can be rejected
as a whole but not in part. In that sense, the relief claimed by
respondent No.1 in the notice of motion(s) which commended to
the High Court, is clearly a jurisdictional error. The fact that one
or some of the reliefs claimed against respondent No.1 in the
concerned suit is barred by Section 34 of 2002 Act or otherwise,
such objection can be raised by invoking other remedies including
under Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC at the appropriate stage. That can
be considered by the Court on its own merits and in accordance
with law. Although, the High Court has examined those
matters in the impugned judgment the same should stand effaced.
[Para 13] [1069-B-E]
2. A fortiori, the appeals must succeed on the sole ground
that the principal relief claimed in the notice of motion filed by
   [2019] 8 S.C.R. 1058
1058
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1059
respondent No.1 to reject the plaint only qua the said respondent
and which commended to the High Court, is replete with
jurisdictional error. Such a relief “cannot be entertained” in
exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC. That power
is limited to rejection of the plaint as a whole or not at all.
[Para 15] [1069-G-H; 1070-A]
Sejal Glass Limited v. Navilan Merchants Private Limited
(2018) 11 SCC 780 : [2017] 7 SCR 557 – relied on.
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and
Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 311 : [2004] 3 SCR 982 ; Jagdish
Singh v. Heeralal and Ors. (2014) 1 SCC 479 : [2013]
12 SCR 232 ; State Bank of India v. Smt. Jigishaben B.
Sanghvi and Ors. 2011 (3) Bom. C. R. 187 ; Arasa
Kumar v. Nauammal II (2015) BC 127 ; M.V. “Sea
Success I” v. Liverpool and London Steamship
Protection and Indemnity Association Ltd. and Ors. AIR
2002 Bombay 151 ; Nahar Industrial Enterprises
Limited v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking
Corporation (2009) 8 SCC 646 : [2009] 12 SCR 54
– referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2004] 3 SCR 982
referred to
Para 7
[2013] 12 SCR 232
referred to
Para 7
2011 (3) Bom. C. R. 187
referred to
Para 7
(2015) BC 127
referred to
Para 7
AIR 2002 Bombay 151
referred to
Para 7
[2017] 7 SCR 557
relied on
Para 9
[2009] 12 SCR 54
referred to
Para 14
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5126
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.2018 of the  High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No. 360 of 2017.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 5127, 5128, 5129 of 2019.
MADHAV PRASAD AGGARWAL v. AXIS BANK LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1060
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
Mukul Rohtagi, Shyam Divan, Sr. Advs., Satyam Vaishnav,
Ms. Rukhmani Bobde, Tanuj Agarwal, Manu Bajaj, Govind Manoharan
(for M/S. Parekh & Co.), Siddhesh Kotwal, Ms. Bansuri Swaraj,
Ms. Shreya Bhatnagar, Raghunatha Sethupathy, Gagan Narang,
Ms. Arshiya Ghose, Ms. Astha Sharma,  Nirnimesh Dube, Advs. for the
Appellants.
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Advs., Bishwajit
Dubey,  Bhalchandra Palav, Ms. Srideepa Bhattachryya, Ms. Ruchi
Choudhury, Lalltaksh Joshi, (for M/S. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas),
Abhimanyu Bhandari, Ms. Ashima Singhal, Naveen Kumar,  Advs. for
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals take exception to the common judgment and
order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Ordinary
Original Civil Jurisdiction) in Appeal Nos.360, 361, 362 and Commercial
Appeal No.172 of 2017 dated 26th October, 2018, whereby the notice of
moti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.