DENA BANK LTD Vs. IRONSIDE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although formally this is an Order passed in Notice of Motion dt. 20th Dec. 1966 in Summary Suit No. 439 of 1966, the decision and the observations will also govern similar question arising in Summary Suit No. 534 of 1966. We are informed that the position in the two suits is identical. This Notice of Motion was made returnable before a single Judge, but by an under dt. 13th April, 1967 the Motion was referred to a Division Bench as the single Judge felt that there could be a conflict between certain decisions of this Court. Anyway he opined that the matter was of sufficient importance to warrant a decision by the Division Bench. The Motion has subsequently been assigned to this Bench by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice.

(2.) By the Motion the defendants seek to set aside and revoke the leave granted to the plaintiffs under Cl.XII of the Letters Patent. This leave was granted by an order made on 12th Aug., 1966. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, a few facts pertaining to the nature of the claim in the suit may be stated.

(3.) The plaintiffs are Dena Bank and they have filed the summary suit against Ironside Ltd., a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act and having its registered office at 110, Cannon Street, London EC-4, England. It is the agreed position that the defendants do not have any office at all in India. The claim of the plaintiffs in the suit is indicated in Para 3 of the Plaint and Para 4 of the Plaint deals with the question of jurisdiction.