R. Saravana Prabhu vs Videocon Leasing and Industrial Finance Ltd.

R. SARAVANA PRABHU & ANR. ... Appellant(s)

Versus

M/S. VIDEOCON LEASING&INDL.FIN.LTD.&ANR. ... Respondent(s)

ORDER

Leave granted.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12th June,

2006 passed by the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.922 of 2005 in Summons for

Judgment No.717 of 1999 in Summary Suit No. 475 of 1999 affirming the judgment

of the learned Single Judge, granting conditional leave to the appellant to contest the

suit filed by the respondent upon depositing Rs. 3.1 crores as pre-condition for

defending the suit.

We have heard Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior

counsel, appearing in support of the appeal and from the materials, it appears that

there are several triable issues -2-

to be considered in the suit, which has been filed under Order 37 CPC. He has relied

on the decision of this Court in the case of Mechelec Engineers & Manufacturers Vs.

M/s. Basic Equipment Corporation, reported in 1977 (1) SCR 1060, wherein a Bench

of three Judges had laid down certain propositions with regard to the grant of leave

in respect of summary trials. The present case appears to be covered by

proposition (b) of the said propositions.

On behalf of the respondent(s) it has been submitted that since leave had

been obtained by the respondent herein for filing the suit under Clause 12 of the

Letters Patent, that itself should be sufficient to indicate that part of the cause of

action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court.

Be that as it may, since the suit filed by the respondent does raise questions

which, prima facie, appear to be triable, following the decision in the Mechelec

Engineers & Manufacturers case (supra), we are of the view that the High Court

erred in directing the appellant to deposit the amount, as mentioned in the cheque.

We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court

and grant unconditional leave to

-3-

the appellant to defend the suit in question. The High Court, however, is requested

to take all such steps as may be possible to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as

possible, but at least within a year from the date of communication of this order. There will be no order as to costs.

...................J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

...................J. (CYRIAC JOSEPH)

New Delhi, January 05, 2009.