STANDARD CHARTERED BANK Vs. M S HANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking adecree against defendant No.2 upon the said defendant failing to comply with the condition of the leave to defend imposed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(2.) in the present case, there were three separate applications for leave to defend, one each by the three defend.ints being I.As.Nos. 6035 90, 5777 90 and 5778/90 were filed. This Court had granted unconditional leavwe to defend to all the three defendants. Feel ing aggrieved by the said order dated 11th March 1993 whereby the said' applications for leave to defend were disposed of by this,Court, the plaintiff moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Special Leave Petitions Nos. 16044, 16046 and 16047 of 1993. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated November26, 1993 passed in the aforesaid Special Leave petitionswas pleased to grant special leave granting conditional leave to the defendants 2 and 3 subject to their depositing Rs.l Crore each in this court within two months(emphasis supplied) from the date of the order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further ordered

(3.) In the case of defendant No.2, it could deposit only Rs.56 lakhs within the time prescribed by the Supreme Court. After the expiry of the said period, a sum of Rs.30 lakhs was also deposited which was allowed to be deposited subject to the' orders of the Hon'ble the Supreme, Court, as it was stated at the bar that the said defendant had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court for extension of time fordepositing the amount. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide orders dated 4th April 1994, dismissed the applications one for themodification of its order and the other for the extension of '63 time. The consequence of the dismissal of such an application is that there is no leave to defend available to defendant No.2. The effect of the defendant not getting leave to defend would be that the plaintiffbecomes entitled to judgment forthwith under the provisions of Order 37 Rule 3(6)(a) CPC.