Skip to content

D.S. Dalal Vs. State Bank of India - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revision Appeal No. 804 of 1984
Reported in1984(8)DRJ156
ActsConstitution of India - Article 20; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 10
AppellantD.S. Dalal
RespondentState Bank of India
Advocates: G.S. Vohra and; Mukesh Kher, Advs
.....of court fees with interest on the ground of non-filing of suit for recovery entrusted to the firm m/s. singh & co., advocates. applicant also stating that he was not partner of m/s. singh & co. and was appearing independently for bank cases--revision dismissed. held--that petitioner not only signed the pleadings and vakalatnama but has appeared on various dates before hon'ble court--statement under order 10 rule 1 would not prejudice the petitioner as petitioner has already disclosed his defense in proceedings before bar council of india.; case also not covered under article 20 of the constitution of india. the decision of lower court up-held regarding recording of statement of petitioner under order 10 civil procedure code. - - vohra stated that if it can be shown even in..............

N.N. Goswamy, J.

(1) The case of the petitioner, at the time when notice to show cause was issued, was that he had never appeared for Singh & Co. in the High Court and as such was not concerned in the High Court matters. This statement was not accepted by the counsel, for the respondent In fact, Mr. Vohra stated that if it can be shown even in one case that the petitioner bad appeared in this Court, the petitioner will be out of court. The respondent lies filed an affidavit. Along with the affidavit various orders of this court have also been filed. I find that the petitioner had not only signed the pleadings and Vakalatnama but has appeared on various' dates in different suits of the plaintiff itself.

(2) The complaint, by the counsel, for the petitioner is that his criminal trial may be prejudiced if he is examined under Order 10 Rule 1. This submission is also not tenatle, for the simple reason that the petitioner has already disclosed his defense in a written statement filed before.:the Bar council. There can be no question of any prejudice in the present case. Dismissed inliming.

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //