The Supreme Court, on Friday, said that the relief in a lawsuit was trying to thwart the defendants from starting the prosecution of the Plaintiff or seeking other legal drugs which were prohibited by law and could be the basis for enabling the application submitted by Regulation VII 11 of the CPC, looking for complaint rejection.

A bench consisting of judges, Mr. Material returns for new considerations

M / s. Frost International Limited v. M / s. Milan (P) developers and builders Limited and ANR.


Factual background.

The applicant has issued a notification to Respondent No.1 below Section 138 of the instrument laws that are negotiated, 1881 told certain checks. No respondents. 1 Submitting a declaration of a suit that is looking for a check that is not submitted as security and the applicant does not have the right to check because they do not hold their appreciation. The applicant submits an application based on the VII 11 CPC command that is looking for rejection, which is rejected. Revision Court allows Regulation Application VII 11 and rejects complaints. Writ Petition Submitted by respondents No. 1 Before the Orissa High Court, which had set aside the sequence of a revised court found that it had exceeded its jurisdiction, and returned this problem for new consideration.

Satisfaction raised by the Applicant

Advocacy, Mrs. Rajdipa Behura appeared on behalf of the applicant and delivered that his continuity did not have the cause of action and was prohibited under Section 41 of the specific relief law. It argues that the trial court does not appreciate the reasons raised in the application looking for rejection. He argued that the High Court had misused Orissa's amendments in Section 115 of the CPC. The maintenance of the proposed writing petition challenged the revision court order was also questioned.

The witters asked by respondents

Advocate, Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria appears on behalf of respondent No. I am of the opinion that when the Invention is rejected by enabling Regulation Application VII 11, it produces a decree that is passed based on Part 2 (2) CPC, and therefore the High Court is true in finding that the revised court has surpassed its jurisdiction.

Analysis by the Supreme Court

At Perusal Section 115 of the CPC (Orissa Amendment), The court noted that the revised court in giving the power to reverse orders that will eventually dispose of a lawsuit or other process. Therefore, he argues that by allowing the application to find complaints rejection, the revised court does not exceed his jurisdiction. Referring to the Catena Assessment, the court believes that the complaint, in this case, reveals the cause of action, therefore cannot be rejected on the land. The objection which is gloriously directed based on part 34 of specific assistance actions will not have water as negligence in the Plaintiff’s section to pray for the release of further consequences only relevant at the time of the final adjudication of the suit and not at the initial stage. Another reason quoted to seek rejection of complaints is that respondents do not. I have prayed for the declaration that the check released on behalf of the Appellate is only security and is not responsible for wearing. The applicant believes that in essence, respondent No.1 tried to thwart the possibility of actions that began actions under this law. The court refers to section 118 (a) of this law sounds below –

  1. The presumption to be negotiated with instruments – until the contrary is proved, the following assumptions will be made

(a) Consideration – that each instrument that can be negotiated is made or withdrawn to be considered, and that each instrument is when it has been received, supported, negotiated or transferred, received, designed, negotiated, or transferred to be considered or transferred;

It notes that there is an assumption that the instrument that can be negotiated is made for consideration. The court noted that in this case it was proven that the check was not honored. It is necessary that the relief sought in complaints is indeed frustrated by the applicant’s right to take the steps below this act to insult the check. Citing Cotton Corporation of India Limited v. United United Industrial Bank Limited and ORS. (1983) 4 SCC 625, Ratna Commercial Enterprises Ltd. v. Vasutech Ltd Air 2008 Del 99 and refers to section 41 (b) and (d) of specific relief laws, the court noted that a lawsuit to hold someone or demand every process cannot be maintained.

Defensive court –

“In the holistic readings of complaints and on the consideration of the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff, we found that the relief was prohibited by law because there was no Plaintiff who was allowed to seek assistance in a suit that would make the defendants from starting prosecution to the plaintiff or looking for other drugs available in the law. “

In the same light, the court argues that the relief declaration that is sought in delays is prohibited by law. This set aside the sequence of high courts and recover that the revised court refused complaints.

Case name: M / s. Frost International Limited v. M / s. Milan (P) developers and builders Limited and ANR.

No. and Date: Criminal Appeal No. 1689 of 2022 | April 1, 2022.

Corum: Judge M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna.

Headnotes.

Section 118 (a) of the instrument law that is negotiated, 1881 – The assumption as an instrument that can be negotiated – Each instrument that can be negotiated is carried out or withdrawn to be considered, and that each of these instruments is, when it has been received, supported, negotiated or transferred, received, accepted, accepted, accepted, supported, negotiated or transferred to consider

Section 41 (b) and (d) Specific Relief Law, 1963 – Stepping can be rejected when trying to hold anyone from the institution or demand every process in a court that does not subjugate that from which the command is sought can be rejected. When trying to hold anyone from institutionalizing or demanding every process in criminal problems

Message VII Rule 11 CPC – Suitable for finding a declaration that the examination issued on behalf of the Petitioner and the Applicant does not have the right to develop it – Basically, this lawsuit seeks to frustrate the possibility of settlement from this law to insult the examination – the relief is prohibited by law – The Revision Court only in allowing applications based on command VII Rule 11 who are looking for rejection.

Popular Posts: