Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2013 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 140 - DELHI HIGH COURTLeave to defend application by the defendant - plaintiff under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure claimed for recovery - Held that:- Defendant no.2 had clearly submitted to the rules as provided under UCP 500. Letter sent by the defendant no.2 to defendant no.1, dated 02.07.1999, did not mention about refusal or acceptance of the documents but had merely intimated the defendant no.1 of certain discrepancies and also stated that it would be sending the submitted documents to the defendant no.3 for acceptance. Further as examined the defendant no.2 was in clear violation of Articles 13 and 14 of the UCP 500 with regard to intimating the plaintiff about discrepancies within the prescribed time of seven banking days Thus it is found that the defendant no.2 has not set up any triable issue and thus its application under Order XXXVII Rules 3(5) and 7 is liable to be are hereby dismissed. Consequentially, the application of leave to defend is dismissed and suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, a decree for a sum of Rs. 20, 92, 802. 40p id passed in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant no.2. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Decree be drawn accordingly.
|