LexSANTOSH KUMAR versus BHAI MOOL SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R. SUPRKl\m COUHT H.EPOR'l'S 1211 I have therefore come to the conclusion that a dispute con- cerning a person who is not 1l workman may be an industrial dispute within s. 2(k). As it has not been said that the dispute with which we are concerned is for any other reason not an industrial dispute, I hold that the Industrial Tribunal had full jurisdiction to adjudicate that dispute and should have done so. I would therefore allow the appeal and send the case back to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication in accordance with Jaw. ORDER OF THE COURT In view of the opinion of the majority, the appeal is dismissed-: But there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. SANTOSH KUMAR v. BHAI MOOL SINGH (S. R. DAIS C. J., VENKATARAMA AIYAR, A. K. SARKAR and VIVIAN BOSE JJ.) Negotiable Instruments-Summary Suit on dishonoured cheque-Application for leave to defend-Triable issue-Failui-e to produce documentary evidence-If 11enders defence va.gue and not bona fide-Grant of conditional leave-Discretion of Court, Interference with-Code of Civil Procedure, 0. XXXVII, rr. 2 and 3. The respondent filed a suit against the appellant under 0. XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedur·e on the basis of a cheque for Rs. 60,000 drawn by the appellant in favour of the respondent which, on presentation to the Bank, had been disho- noured. The appellant applied under r. 3 of 0. XXXVII for leave· to appear and defend the suit on the ground that the cheque had been given only as a collateral security for the price of goods supplied, that the goods had been paid for by cash payments and by other cheques 11nd that therefore the cheque in question had served its end and was without consi- L/S4SCI-2(a) 1958 JYorkmen of Dimakuelfi Tea. Estate v. Tl1e .lla1wgem•.nt uf JJimakuchi 2'ea EstaJe Sutkar ./. 1958 Fr-bruury 5. 1958 1$ant-Osh Kumar v. Blu.i M ocl Singh Bose J. 1212 SUPREl\fE COURT REPORTS [1958] deration. The Court held that the defence raised a triable issue but tha.t· the defence was vague and was not b<>11a fide as the ap.. pellant had produced no evidence to prove his assertions and consequently granted leave to defend the suit vn the condition of the appeUant giving security for the suit amount and the costs of the suit: Held, that the imposition of the condition was illegal and the appellant was entitled to defend the suit without giving_ the security. The object of the special procedure under 0. XXXVII of the Cod&1s ta see that a defendant does not unnecessarily prolong the lLtigation by raising untenable and frivolous defen- ces. The test is to see whether the defence raises a real' issue and not a sham one, fa the sense that, ii the facts alleged by the defendant are established, there would be a good, or even a plausible, defence on those facts. If the Court is satisfied about that, leave must be given and given unconditionall~. Held, further, that the Court was wrong in imposing the condition about givtlng security on the ground that for want of production Qf documentary evidence the defence was vague and not bona fide as the stage of proof can only arise after leave to appeal and defend has been granted. Though the Court is given a discretion about imposing conditions it must be exercised judicially and in consonance With principles Of natural justice. If the discretion is exercised arbitrarily, or is based on a mis- understanding of the principles that govern its exercise then interference is called for if there has been a resultant failure of justice. Clv1L APPELLATE JuR1so1cmoN: Civil Appeal No. 96 of 1957. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 17, 1956, of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) at Delhi in Civil Misc. No. 896-D of 1956. arising out of the judgment and order dated November 1. 1956, of the Court of Commercial Subordinate .Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 264 of 1956 under Order XXXVIl, C.P.C. A. V. Vishwanatha Sastri and Naunit Lal, for the appel- lant. Bak/1Shi Gurchi:lran Singh and Sardar Singh, for the res- pondent. 1958. February S. The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by BosE J.-The defendan!S, Santosh Kumar and the Nor- thern General Agencies, were granted special leave to appeal. The plaintiff filed the suit out Qf which the appeal· arises on S.C.R SUPREME COUH'L' HEPORTS the basis of a cheque for Rs. 60,000 drawn by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff and which,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.