MADHAV PRASAD AGGARWAL & ANR. versus AXIS BANK LTD. & ANR.

MADHAV PRASAD AGGARWAL & ANR. versus AXIS BANK LTD. & ANR.

The Supreme Court held that the power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited to rejecting the plaint as a whole; it cannot be rejected only as against one defendant. The High Court committed a jurisdictional error in allowing rejection of the plaint qua Axis Bank Ltd. only. As such, the order of the High Court was set aside and the order of the Single Judge dismissing the bank's motion for partial rejection was restored.

Parties
Appellant: Madhav Prasad Aggarwal; Respondent: Axis Bank Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No. 360 of 2017 and Connected Matters, Decided on 26.10.2018
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Rejection of Plaint, Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, Jurisdictional Error, Section 34 of SARFAESI Act
Civil Procedure Rejection of Plaint Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC Jurisdictional Error Section 34 of SARFAESI Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Madhav Prasad Aggarwal

Appellant

Axis Bank Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No. 360 of 2017 and Connected Matters, Decided on 26.10.2018

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a plaint can be rejected only as against one defendant under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC?
  2. 2 Whether the relief to reject the plaint qua Axis Bank (respondent) is legally maintainable?
  3. 3 Whether bar under Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, applies to the suits?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited to rejecting the plaint as a whole; it cannot be rejected only as against one defendant. The High Court committed a jurisdictional error in allowing rejection of the plaint qua Axis Bank Ltd. only. As such, the order of the High Court was set aside and the order of the Single Judge dismissing the bank's motion for partial rejection was restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside.
  • The order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the notice of motion(s) is restored.