SYNDICATE BANK Vs. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Certain litigations show a mindset to indulge in unnecessary litigation. The present appeals are such unfortunate litigations, and which are all the more unfortunate because they are filed by a nationalized bank. Except technical aspects nothing has been argued with respect to challenge to the impugned orders.

(2.) This first appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant against the orders of the trial court dated 17.12.2012 which have allowed two applications filed by the respondent M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. under Order 22 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC and under Section 153 CPC and Order 6 Rule 17 read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Both these applications were allowed by the court below and thereby M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. was substituted in place of the original plaintiff M/s. Indo Gulf Corporation Ltd.

(3.) The subject suits were suits filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 15/16 lakh under Order 37 CPC. Trial court had dismissed the leave to defend applications, but, a Division Bench of this Court in RFAs No.476/2006 and 477/2006 granted leave to defend to the appellant/defendant subject to deposit of the amounts claimed in the suits in court. The suit amounts have thus been deposited by the appellant/defendant. It is during the pendency of the suits thereafter that the subject applications were filed and which have been allowed by the impugned orders dated 17.12.2012.