Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 360 views

    Presentation On Case Indian Overseas Bank, Madras Vs Chemical Construction Company & Ors. 1979 (4) SCC 358

    Uploaded by

    Adv Aastha Makkar
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of transferring the case from the Seoni District Court in Madhya Pradesh to the Madras High Court. While one respondent argued the financial burden would be too high, the Court determined that factors like common evidence and issues between the cases, as well as avoiding conflicting decisions, were more important considerations. The contract was also signed in Madras, so the Madras High Court had proper territorial jurisdiction. Transferring both cases promoted expediency and the interests of justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Presentation On Case Indian Overseas Bank, Madras Vs Chemical Construction Company & Ors. 1979 (4) SCC 358

    Uploaded by

    Adv Aastha Makkar
    360 views8 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of transferring the case from the Seoni District Court in Madhya Pradesh to the Madras High Court. While one respondent argued the financial burden would be too high, the Court determined that factors like common evidence and issues between the cases, as well as avoiding conflicting decisions, were more important considerations. The contract was also signed in Madras, so the Madras High Court had proper territorial jurisdiction. Transferring both cases promoted expediency and the interests of justice.

    Original Description:

    presentation on chemical construction case

    Original Title

    Presentation on cpc

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of transferring the case from the Seoni District Court in Madhya Pradesh to the Madras High Court. While one respondent argued the financial burden would be too high, the Court determined that factors like common evidence and issues between the cases, as well as avoiding conflicting decisions, were more important considerations. The contract was also signed in Madras, so the Madras High Court had proper territorial jurisdiction. Transferring both cases promoted expediency and the interests of justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    360 views8 pages

    Presentation On Case Indian Overseas Bank, Madras Vs Chemical Construction Company & Ors. 1979 (4) SCC 358

    Uploaded by

    Adv Aastha Makkar
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of transferring the case from the Seoni District Court in Madhya Pradesh to the Madras High Court. While one respondent argued the financial burden would be too high, the Court determined that factors like common evidence and issues between the cases, as well as avoiding conflicting decisions, were more important considerations. The contract was also signed in Madras, so the Madras High Court had proper territorial jurisdiction. Transferring both cases promoted expediency and the interests of justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 8

    Presentation on case

    Indian Overseas Bank,


    Madras
    vs
    Chemical Construction
    Company & Ors.
    1979 (4) SCC 358
    BY : AASTHA
    LPU
    Facts of the case
    O There were 5 parties in the case. The case in the hon’ble court had one
    petitioner and 4 respondents as mentioned above.
    O The chemical construction entered into a contract on November 11,
    1969 with the Rajadhiraj Industries to construct a plant in order to
    manufacture of hydrogenated vegetable oil.
    O The Industrial Bank agreed to finance the manufacturer chemical
    construction under a Scheme called the "Bills Rediscounting Scheme".
    Under that Scheme the manufacturer would obtain in installments the
    value of the machinery by discounting with his banker the bills of
    exchange arising out of the sale of the machinery.
    O Under the scheme, the bankers of the manufacturer/seller would take up
    the discounted bills and get them rediscounted by the Industrial Bank.
    The discounting bank would be liable to pay to the Industrial Bank.
    Facts
    O The Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation (fourth respondent) executed an
    irrevocable guarantee on November 3, 1970 and a supplementary guarantee on
    February 18, 1971 in favour of the Indian Overseas bank (petitioner) on behalf of
    Rajadhiraj Industries.
    O The petitioner had discounted a total of 9 Bills that amounts to Rs. 9.42 lacs The
    first eight of these bills were rediscounted by the petitioner with the Industrial Bank
    for a total sum of Rs. 6.99 lacs, which was subsequently paid over to the Industrial
    Bank by the Indian Overseas Bank.
    O These eight bills was not paid by the Rajadhiraj Industries to the Indian Overseas
    Bank. The remaining bill for Rs. 2,43,376/- was not rediscounted.
    O On September 1972, Rajadhiraj Industries filed suit in the District Court, Seoni
    against the all the parties.
    O The Indian Overseas bank filed suit in the High Court of Madras against Chemical
    Construction firm and Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation and five other
    defendants, who are partners in the Chemical Construction firm.
    O As two cases were going on between same parties so the Indian Overseas Bank had
    filed petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court to transfer the case from Seoni District
    Court to Madras High Court.
    Issues Involved
    O Whether financial burden to a party can be the

    sole reason to reject the transfer petition?


    O Whether or not section 10 of Code of Civil

    Procedure is applicable in transfer petition?


    Arguments from Petitioner
    O The petitioner and other respondents in this case
    argued that financial burden to a party cannot be the
    sole reason to reject the petition. They argued that
    other factors such as availability of evidence, and the
    common link to all the respondents were Madras as
    the contract was signed and agreed there.
    O The petitioner and other respondents agreed to the
    petition to transfer the suit from seoni to Madras. As
    Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation who were the
    guarantors also said that they had no objection to the
    transfer of the Seoni suit to Madras.
    Arguments from Respondent
    O The counsel for the industries submitted that for a small
    company it will simply be impossible to fight the
    litigation at Madras, and the extra expenditure that will
    have to be incurred by his clients in undertaking frequent
    visits to Madras which is about 1000 miles from Seoni,
    may prove too heavy a financial burden for it.
    O Another objection as to want of territorial jurisdiction of
    the Madras High Court. The counsel from the side of the
    industries argued the proper course is to stay the
    subsequently instituted suit under Section 10 of the Code
    of Civil Procedure till the disposal of the suit at Seoni by
    the District Judge.
    Judgment
    O Held : The payment of the bills were to be made to
    the petitioner bank at Madras. The evidence in both
    the suits would mostly be common and locally
    available at Madras. Transfer of the Seoni suit to
    Madras High Court will avoid multiplicity in the trial
    of the common issues and obviate the risk of
    conflicting decisions. Under the circumstances, it is
    manifestly "expedient in the interest of justice" that
    both the suits should be tried by the Madras High
    Court on its Original Side by the same Judge/Judges.

    You might also like