CASE BREIF : MECHELEC ENGINEERS AND MANUFACTURERS
V. BASIC EQUIPMENT CORPORATION
CITATION : 1977 AIR 577
COURT : Supreme Court of India
BENCH : A.N. Ray, C.J , M.H Beg, Jaswant Singh, JJ.
PARTIES
PETITIONER : MECHELEC ENGINEERS AND MANUFACTURERS
RESPONDENT: BASIC EQUIPMENT CORPORATION
DECIDED ON:
1 November, 1976
FACTS
The case in question stemmed from a summary suit that Basic Equipment
Corporation filed against Mechalec Engineers and Manufacturers in an attempt to
recover money totaling about 21,000 rupees plus 12% annual interest.
Mechalec Engineers requested leave to defend in accordance with Order 37, Rule 3
of the CPC, and the trial court first gave them unconditional leave.
However, the decision was changed to grant conditional leave to defend after the
Delhi High Court revised it in accordance with Section 115 of the CPC.
This required the full amount to be deposited, plus 6% interest annually. Mechalec
Engineers then filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court to challenge the
High Court's ruling.
ISSUES
Could the High Court interfere, in exercise of its powers under section 115, Civil
Procedure Code, with the discretion of the Additional District Judge, in granting
unconditional leave to defence to the defendant-appellant upon grounds which even a
perusal of the order of the High Court shows to be reasonable ?
ARGUMENTS
RATIO DECENDI
The ruling in this case upheld the precepts established in previous cases such as Smt.
Kiranmoyee Dassi v. Dr. J. Chatterjee and Jacobs v. Booth's Distillery Co. It established that a
