Bombay High court imposes costs of five lakhs on defendant who made application for sending summary suit to Commercial courts to delay the proceeding

  Keeping in mind the objectives of the summary procedure under Order XXXVII of the CPC, so that cases falling in the specific classes of suits as specified in Rule 2 of Order XXXVII of the CPC, are disposed of expeditiously by following a summary procedure, I am of the view that the whole endeavour by the Defendants is to delay the progress of the Summary Suit. The very fact that this Application is filed after the Interim Application seeking dismissal of the Suit on the purported ground of breach of Section 12A of the said Act, itself is a pointer to the conduct of the Defendants in proceeding in the suit. Therefore, I also propose to impose exemplary costs of Rs. 5 lacs to be paid by the Defendants to the High Court Non Gazetted Ministerial Staff Association, Mumbai within a period of two weeks. {Para 30}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 6341 OF 2024

IN

SUMMARY SUIT NO. 18 OF 2023

VARANIUM CLOUD LIMITED …APPLICANT

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

ROLTA PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. …PLAINTIFFS

VS

VARANIUM CLOUD LIMITED AND ANR. …DEFENDANTS

CORAM :ABHAY AHUJA, J.

PRONOUNCED ON: 11 TH NOVEMBER, 2024.

Read full Judgment here : Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Motor accident claim tribunal should follow summary procedure and should not conduct proceeding like regular Civil Suits

 The aforesaid directions to the Tribunals are without prejudice to the discretion of each Tribunal to follow such summary procedure as it deems fit as provided under Section 169 of the Act. Many Tribunals instead of holding an inquiry into the claim by following suitable summary procedure, as mandated by Section 168 and 169 of the Act, tend to conduct motor accident cases like regular civil suits. This should be avoided. The Tribunal shall take an active role in deciding and expeditious disposal of the applications for compensation and make effective use of Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872, to determine the just compensation. {Para 14}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SLP (C) Nos. 11801-11804 of 2005

Decided On: 17.12.2009

Jai Prakash Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.V. Raveendran, Mukundakam Sharma and K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan, JJ.

Author: R.V. Raveendran, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1949/2009,(2010) 2 SCC 607.

Print Page

Important provisions of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999

 3. Fraudulent default by Financial Establishment. Any Financial Establishment, which fraudulently defaults any repayment of deposit on maturity alongwith any benefit in the form of interest, bonus, profit or in any other form as promised or fraudulently fails to render service as assured against the deposit, every person including the promoter, partner, director, manager or any other person or an employee responsible for the management of or conducting of the business or affairs of such Financial Establishment shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six years and with fine which may extend to one lac of rupees and such Financial Establishment also shall be liable for a fine which may extend to one lac of rupees.

4. Attachment of properties on default of return of deposits.

Print Page