No Order as to Costs - The Legal Chamber

Simplifying the Supreme Court’s Order 37 Judgment: Why “Leave to Defend” is Mandatory

19Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Simplifying the Supreme Court’s Order 37 Judgment: Why “Leave to Defend” is Mandatory

The Supreme Court held that in a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC, a defendant cannot file a defence without first obtaining "leave to defend" from the court. Permitting a reply to a summons for judgment bypasses this mandatory procedure, which effaces the fundamental distinction between a summary suit and an ordinary suit. The Court set aside the impugned order for this procedural deviation. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a commercial summary suit filed by the appellant, Executive Trading Company, to recover a sum of over Rs. 2.38 crore from the respondent, Grow Well Mercantile. The suit was instituted under the special fast-track procedure of Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). After the defendant entered appearance, the plaintiff served a "summons for judgm...

Can’t Withhold Pension for Not Vacating Govt Quarter: Supreme Court Rules for Employee

This Supreme Court judgment reaffirms that pension and retiral dues are a statutory right, not a bounty, and cannot be withheld by the employer. The Court held that non-vacation of a government residence is not a valid justification for withholding such dues, as the right to pension is distinct from the right to occupation of service accommodation. Facts Of The Case: The respondent, a state government employee since 1980, superannuated on 30th June 2013, but his pension and retiral dues were not sanctioned or paid. Subsequently, the appellant department passed an order quashing his earlier pay revision and refixing his salary to a lower scale. This refixation was challenged and later withdrawn by the department, but the retiral dues remained unpaid, ostensibly because the respondent had ...

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Peaceful Protest, Quashes Criminal Case Against Andhra Educationists

The Supreme Court held that certified copies of municipal documents, duly certified under Section 376 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, carry the same evidentiary value as originals. The failure of the Municipal Council to produce original records despite court orders justified drawing an adverse inference, and a registered sale certificate cannot be invalidated by a mere administrative resolution. Facts Of The Case: The dispute concerned two plots, No. 394 and 395, auctioned by the City Municipal Council (CMC). Respondent No. 2, Prabhudeva, purchased plot No. 395 in a 1973 auction, but his 1988 sale deed erroneously mentioned plot No. 394. Upon realizing this mistake, he applied for rectification in 1992. The CMC's Junior Engineer inspected the site and confirmed the error, lea...