SHRI NARENDRA MEFATLAL MEHTA t/a N. MEHTA & CO v. SYED ABDUL CADER t/a EFFICIENT ENTERPRISE

SHRI NARENDRA MEFATLAL MEHTA t/a N. MEHTA & CO v. SYED ABDUL CADER t/a EFFICIENT ENTERPRISE

The appeal is dismissed because the defendant failed to particularise or adequately substantiate alleged illegality or lack of consideration and therefore did not disclose a credible triable defence; the Master's exercise of discretion to set aside the default judgment subject to terms (payment into court) was proper and is affirmed, the principles applicable to Order 14 and Order 13 rule 9 being substantially similar as regards conditional leave to defend.

Citation
SHRI NARENDRA MEFATLAL MEHTA t/a N. MEHTA & CO v. SYED ABDUL CADER t/a EFFICIENT ENTERPRISE
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Shri Narendra Mefatlal Mehta trading as N. Mehta & Co.; Defendant/appellant: Syed Abdul Cader trading as Efficient Enterprise
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 February 1982
Case Number
HCA6010/1980
Procedural Posture
Civil Application to Set Aside Default Judgment (bill of Exchange Action) / Appeal From Master's Order in Chambers
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Master's order affirmed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Default Judgment (order 13 Rule 9), Conditional Leave to Defend (order 14), Illegality Defence, Consideration, Terms for Leave to Defend
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Bills of Exchange Contract Law Public Policy/illegality Setting Aside Default Judgment (order 13 Rule 9) Conditional Leave to Defend (order 14) Illegality Defence Consideration +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shri Narendra Mefatlal Mehta trading as N. Mehta & Co.

Plaintiff/respondent

Syed Abdul Cader trading as Efficient Enterprise

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application to Set Aside Default Judgment (bill of Exchange Action) / Appeal From Master's Order in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether principles for granting conditional leave under Order 14 apply to applications under Order 13 rule 9
  2. 2 Whether the defendant disclosed a bona fide triable defence of illegality or want of consideration
  3. 3 Whether the Master's imposition of terms (payment into court) was proper

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the defendant failed to particularise or adequately substantiate alleged illegality or lack of consideration and therefore did not disclose a credible triable defence; the Master's exercise of discretion to set aside the default judgment subject to terms (payment into court) was proper and is affirmed, the principles applicable to Order 14 and Order 13 rule 9 being substantially similar as regards conditional leave to defend.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Master's order affirmed

Orders

  • Dismiss the appeal with costs to the plaintiff
  • Affirm the Master's order granting leave to defend conditional upon payment into court