AIR 2002 BOMBAY 32 ::(2001) 4 ComLJ 205 ::(2003) 1 BankCLR 387 ::(2001) 4 AllMR 394 (BOM) ::2001 (5) BomCR 452 ::2001 All MR(CRI) 394

Bombay High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): D. Y. Chandrachud , J

(A) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.37 R.3(5)— Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules (1957) , R.221(2)— Summary suit - Unconditional leave to defend - Grant of, by High Court - Supreme Court in appeal while vecating order granting unconditional leave, has dismissed application filed by defendant for leave to defend - In circumstances, it would be wholly inappropriate to read judgment of Supreme Court as meaning that there was a remand to the High Court for fresh consideration of whether defendant should be granted leave to defend suit - Thus Defendant would not be entitled to leave to defend - Consequently plaintiff should be entitled to judgment and decree, especially in circumstances of case. Constitution of India , Art.141— (Para 10) (B) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.37 R.3(5)— Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules (1957) , R.221(2)— Leave to defend - Suit for enforcement of bank guarantee - Application by defendant bank for unconditional leave to defend - Dismissed by Supreme Court - Attempt by defendant to reagitate question of grant of leave to defend on ground that claim for interest is not based upon terms of guarantee executed by Defendant - Would not tenable. (Para 12) ....