IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd v Hubtown Ltd
(2017) 1 SCC 56820161 min read
The case in brief30-second read
- Facts
- The plaintiff, a debenture trustee, filed a summary suit under O.XXXVII. The defendant sought leave to defend.
- Issue
- What principles govern the grant of leave to defend under O.XXXVII R.3(5) after the 1976 amendment.
- Held
- The older Mechelec principles must be read in the light of the amended O.XXXVII R.3. Where the defence is substantial, leave is unconditional; where it raises triable issues fairly, leave is ordinarily unconditional; where it is plausible but improbable, conditions such as deposit may be imposed; where it is frivolous or vexatious, leave is refused; and where any part of the claim is admitted, leave is not granted until it is deposited.
- Principle
- Leave to defend a summary suit depends on the strength of the defence and may be unconditional, conditional or refused.
Facts
- The plaintiff, a debenture trustee, filed a summary suit under O.XXXVII. The defendant sought leave to defend.
Issue
- What principles govern the grant of leave to defend under O.XXXVII R.3(5) after the 1976 amendment.
Held
- The older Mechelec principles must be read in the light of the amended O.XXXVII R.3. Where the defence is substantial, leave is unconditional; where it raises triable issues fairly, leave is ordinarily unconditional; where it is plausible but improbable, conditions such as deposit may be imposed; where it is frivolous or vexatious, leave is refused; and where any part of the claim is admitted, leave is not granted until it is deposited.
Cite this
Citation
IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd v Hubtown Ltd (2017) 1 SCC 568Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194456776/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.