Whether the court can reject plaint if there are disputed question of fact?

In the present case, the controversy has arisen in an application Under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure. Whether the matter comes within the purview of Section 4(3) of the Act is an aspect which must be gone into on the strength of the evidence on record. Going by the averments in the Plaint, the question whether the plea raised by the Appellant is barred Under Section 4 of the Act or not could not have been the subject matter of assessment at the stage when application Under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure was taken up for consideration. The matter required fuller and final consideration after the evidence was led by the parties. It cannot be said that the plea of the Appellant as raised on the face of it, was barred under the Act. The approach must be to proceed on a demurrer and see whether accepting the averments in the plaint the suit is barred by any law or not. We may quote the following observations of this Court in Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association MANU/SC/0516/2005 : (2005) 7 SCC 510:

10. Clause (d) of Order 7 Rule 7 speaks of suit, as appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Disputed questions cannot be decided at the time of considering an application filed Under Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure. Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 applies in those cases only where the statement made by the Plaintiff in the plaint, without any doubt or dispute shows that the suit is barred by any law in force. {Para 13}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 3367 of 2019 

Decided On: 02.04.2019

Pawan Kumar  Vs. Babulal since Deceased through L.Rs. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

U.U. Lalit and Indu Malhotra, JJ.

Author: U.U. Lalit, J.

Citation: (2019) 4 SCC 367,MANU/SC/0461/2019

Print Page

Whether Commercial courts should hold Summary trial even if there are disputed questions of facts?

Accordingly, unlike ordinary suits, Courts need not hold trial in commercial suits, even if there are disputed questions of fact as held by the Canadian Supreme Court in Robert Hryniak (supra), in the event, the Court comes to the conclusion that the defendant lacks a real prospect of successfully defending the claim. {Para 92}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CS (COMM) 1155/2018, I.As. 13597/2018 and 14309/2018

Decided On: 30.10.2019

Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. Vs.   Kunwer Sachdev

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manmohan, J.

Citation: 2019 SCCOnline Del 10764

 The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has been enacted with the intent to improve efficiency and reduce delay in disposal of commercial cases. The relevant portion of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"to have a streamlined procedure which is to be adopted for the conduct of cases in the Commercial Courts and in the Commercial Divisions by amending the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, so as to improve the efficiency and reduce delays in disposal of commercial cases. The proposed case management system and provisions for summary judgment will enable disposal of commercial disputes in a time bound manner."

Print Page

When evidence collected unilaterally by Vigilance Cell/Authority/Officer, can be used against claimant?

The Scrutiny Committee must give all opportunities to the
affected person. The evidence collected unilaterally by the Vigilance
Cell/Authority/Officer, if used against the claimant, all opportunities
be given to deal with the same. How the unilaterally collected
material be used against the party/claimant, when deciding legal and
Constitutional rights. The principle of natural justice needs to be
followed, in case of no specific rules. The opportunity needs to be
given to the person/claimant to rebut the presumption of decision of
Scrutiny Committee, if any, especially when against the Scrutiny
Committee order, the Writ Petitions are filed, and the Writ Court
under Articles 226 and 227, are required to go into the details of the
disputed question of fact and documents, though writ jurisdiction and
its scope is limited. The decision is required to be considered in Writ
Petition like Appellate Authority. The Writ Court needs to examine the
case on merits also, including the Vigilance Cell report, which just
cannot be overlooked.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7343 OF 2013
Madhuri Nitin Jadhav,
Vs.
 State of Maharashtra, through its


CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
A.A. SAYED, JJ.

PRONOUNCED ON : 26 FEBRUARY 2014.
Citation;2015(2)ALLMR200

Print Page