LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Apollo Zipper India Limited v. W. Newman And Co. Ltd.

Civil Appeal · 2018 INSC 384Decided 20 Apr 2018
Civil Appeal No. 4249 of 2018
Justice R.K. Agrawal · Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

Background

The appellant (landlord/plaintiff) owned business premises inside the historic Great Eastern Hotel building in Kolkata, let out decades earlier to the respondent (tenant/defendant) at a monthly rent of Rs. 40,000. The appellant filed a summary eviction suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent; a Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court declined to grant the tenant leave to defend the suit, but the Division Bench reversed this and allowed the tenant unconditional leave to defend, remanding the matter for a full trial.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that since the monthly rent (Rs. 40,000) exceeded the Rs. 10,000 threshold under Section 3(f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, the tenancy protections of that Act did not apply to these non-residential premises, so the landlord was entitled to proceed via summary suit. Examining the tenant's three grounds for seeking leave to defend, the Court found none raised an arguable or substantial defense with any real factual or legal foundation: they were raised "only for the sake of raising." It therefore held the Single Judge had rightly declined leave to defend and the Division Bench had wrongly granted it, restored the Single Judge's order, allowed the appeal, and gave the tenant six months to vacate subject to depositing all arrears and six months' additional rent as damages, with other related pending cases between the parties over the same premises standing disposed of as a consequence.

Lesson Learnt

In a summary suit, a defendant is not entitled to unconditional leave to defend merely by raising objections: the defence must show a genuine, substantial factual or legal basis, otherwise courts will refuse a full trial and decide the matter summarily.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Smt Nisha Sharma vs. M/S Intec Capital Limited and Ors

The Court held that because the property had already been specifically identified in the pending execution case before the transfer happened, the transfer remained subject to the execution proceedings under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and didn't place the share beyond the lender's reach. It also found the appellant couldn't reopen the same ownership argument a second time, since an identical objection had already been rejected earlier and not appealed, and that the surrounding facts (payment timing, continued family occupation, auction bought by a relative) suggested the transfer was intended to defeat the lender's claim. The appeal was dismissed and the auction sale of the guarantor's half-share was upheld.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Shakeel Qureshi & Ors. vs. Rashid Qureshi & Ors.

The Court held that since the plaintiffs' own claims were entirely built on the MoU, the MoU's exclusionary jurisdiction clause (Clause 10, conferring jurisdiction only on Bareilly courts) had to be examined and applied. It rejected the plaintiffs' "approbate and reprobate" argument (that defendants couldn't rely on the MoU in other suits yet deny Delhi's jurisdiction here), finding the defendants' conduct in earlier, differently-framed suits didn't amount to such inconsistency. The plaint was returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to be filed before a court of competent jurisdiction at Bareilly, without any opinion expressed on the merits of the fraud/breach allegations.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

M/S Siddhivinayak Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Coal India Limited & Ors.

The Division Bench held that an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 only lies against orders specifically listed in Order XLIII of the CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, relying on Supreme Court authority (Kandla Export Corporation) confirming this is an exhaustive, not illustrative, list. Since an order converting a summary suit into a regular suit isn't among the orders listed in Order XLIII, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Ramesh vs. Smt. Geeta

The High Court agreed with the lower courts that the document recorded only a loan transaction, not a sale, so the appellant's argument about an illegal/void sale (under Section 23 of the Contract Act) didn't apply. Since the respondent was relying on her own allotment rights rather than enforcing the disputed document, and the appeal really just disputed how the evidence had been weighed, no substantial legal question arose, and the second appeal was dismissed.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Pooja Singh vs. Gulab Devi Prasad Singh

While the appeal was pending, the parties settled the matter in execution proceedings for Rs. 9,50,000, and part of that settlement had already been acted upon. Rs. 1,98,000 had been paid to the Plaintiff, and the balance of Rs. 7,52,000 had been deposited in the High Court. The Court held that the Defendant could not go back on a settlement that had been acted upon, and that no monetary dispute remained for adjudication. The Court directed that the deposited balance be released to the Plaintiff and disposed of the appeal in terms of the settlement.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Richmond Global School vs. Shri Vijay Kumar Jain

The Court considered the legal meaning of "sufficient cause", explaining that it requires the party to show that it was not negligent or lacking in bona fides, and that the facts must support the exercise of discretion judiciously. Finding that the District Judge's view was correct, the High Court held that the appeal was devoid of merit and dismissed it, with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case