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. 436of 1966, the decision and the observations will also govern simiar question arising in summary Suit No. 534 or 1966. We are informed that theposition in the twosuits is identical. This Notice of motion was made returanble before a single judge but by an order dt. 13th april, 1967 the Motion was referred to a Division Bench as the single Judge felt that the could be a conflict between certain decisions of this court. Anyway be opined that the matter was od sufficient importance towarrant a decision by the Division Bench. The Motion had subsequently been assigned to this Bench by the hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice.

(2.) By the notion the defendant seek to set aside andrevoke the leave granted to the plaintiffs under Cl. XII of the letter Patent. This leave was granted by anorder made on 123 th Aug., 1966 In order to appreciate the rival contentions, a few facts pertaining to the nature of the claim in thesuit may be stated.

(3.) The plaintiffs are Dena Bank and they have filed the summary suit against Ironside Lte., a Company registered under the Indian companies Act and having its registered office at 110, Cannon Street, London EC-4, England It is theagreed position that the defendants donot 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 juridiction.