We have to consider the application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) filed by Axis Bank in these five suits in the light of the facts recounted above. Various issues arise in connection with this application. The first, of course, is whether or not a plaint can be rejected as against one particular Defendant, whilst maintaining the same against others, under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. Ms. Iyer, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Axis Bank, relies on a Division Bench judgment of our court in the case of M.V. "Sea Success I" v. Liverpool and London Steamship Protection and Indemnity Association Ltd. MANU/MH/0842/2001 : AIR 2002 BOMBAY 151 Relying on this judgment, learned Counsel submits that there is no legal bar under Order 7 Rule 11 in rejecting the plaint only against some of the Defendants. The Division Bench of our court noted various precedents in this behalf, including some judgments of the Supreme Court where plaint was rejected against one or other of the Defendants, and held that there was no such bar. In view of the clear exposition of law by the Division Bench in m.v. Sea Success, it cannot be gainsaid that a plaint in an appropriate case can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code against some of the Defendants.
Print Page
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Notice of Motion No. 7 of 2017 in Suit No. 8 of 2017, Notice of Motion No. 1206 of 2017 in Suit No. 8 of 2017,
Decided On: 26.07.2017
Padma Ashok Bhatt and Ors. Vs. Orbit Corporation Ltd. and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S.C. Gupte, J.
No comments:
Post a Comment