APPEAL AGAINST HIGH COURT'S DIRECTIVE TO ACCEPT MEMO IN SUMMARY SUIT INVOLVING RECOVERY OF FUNDS

ASPECTS	DETAILS
CASE TITLE	Anish M Rawther @ Anees Mohammed Rawther vs. Hafeez Ur Rahman & Ors.
INTRODUCTION	Anish M Rawther appealed against the Karnataka High Court’s order, which directed the Trial Court to accept a memo submitted by Hafeez Ur Rahman and others. The High Court’s order set aside an earlier Trial Court decision, leading to this appeal.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND	The respondents filed a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to recover Rs. 1,04,16,576/- with interest. The Trial Court allowed the appellants to defend by depositing 50% of the claim. The High Court upheld this, and the Supreme Court dismissed the appellants’ SLP. The respondents’ memo to decree the suit was initially rejected by the Trial Court but accepted by the High Court.
LEGAL ISSUES	Whether the High Court was correct in directing the Trial Court to accept the respondents’ memo. Whether the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, affects the proceedings.
APPLICABLE LAW	Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
ANALYSIS	The High Court set aside the Trial Court’s rejection of the respondents’ memo and directed the Trial Court to accept it. The appellants argued that the IBC moratorium should halt proceedings, but the High Court dismissed this argument. The Supreme Court’s interim stay order did not affect the final decree issued by the Trial Court.
CONCLUSION	The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as infructuous because the suit had already been decreed, and the decree was not further challenged by the appellants.
CURRENT SCENARIO	Since the decree has not been challenged, the suit is resolved, rendering the appeal infructuous and leading to its dismissal.

ASPECTS

DETAILS

CASE TITLE

Anish M Rawther @ Anees Mohammed Rawther vs. Hafeez Ur Rahman & Ors.

INTRODUCTION

Anish M Rawther appealed against the Karnataka High Court’s order, which directed the Trial Court to accept a memo submitted by Hafeez Ur Rahman and others. The High Court’s order set aside an earlier Trial Court decision, leading to this appeal.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The respondents filed a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to recover Rs. 1,04,16,576/- with interest. The Trial Court allowed the appellants to defend by depositing 50% of the claim. The High Court upheld this, and the Supreme Court dismissed the appellants’ SLP. The respondents’ memo to decree the suit was initially rejected by the Trial Court but accepted by the High Court.

LEGAL ISSUES

Whether the High Court was correct in directing the Trial Court to accept the respondents’ memo.
Whether the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, affects the proceedings.

APPLICABLE LAW

Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

ANALYSIS

The High Court set aside the Trial Court’s rejection of the respondents’ memo and directed the Trial Court to accept it. The appellants argued that the IBC moratorium should halt proceedings, but the High Court dismissed this argument. The Supreme Court’s interim stay order did not affect the final decree issued by the Trial Court.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as infructuous because the suit had already been decreed, and the decree was not further challenged by the appellants.

CURRENT SCENARIO

Since the decree has not been challenged, the suit is resolved, rendering the appeal infructuous and leading to its dismissal.