Protection of Court which would be a premium on default of Plaintiff cannot be granted
Protection of the Court which would be a premium on the default of the Plaintiff cannot be granted. This has been similarly held when a tenant who had defaulted in making payments of rent under Section 13(4) of the Bombay Rent Act 1947, but whose defence was not applied to be struck off by the landlord was held not entitled to take 16 NM.3701.09-S.2429.97-ORDER.sxw
advantage of the inaction on the part of the landlord (See in the case of Prakash Chand & Ors Vs. Firm Pohap Singh Kishan Sahai & Ors. RLW 2006(4) Raj 2763, 2006(4) WLC 248) Similarly the defaulting parties to an arbitration who sought to adopt their own procedure was not permitted to insist later that the Arbitrator should have been appointed as per procedure indicated in the arbitration clause on the same principal (See in the case of HBHL-VKS (J.V.) Vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors. 2007(1) ARBLR 252 (Delhi). Also when parties settled their dispute in a suit upon a mortgage requiring a preliminary decree to be passed, but which procedure was circumvented by their settlement, were held not entitled to contend that the provisions of Order 34 of the C.P.C relating to a mortgage decree did not apply to a compromise decree as that would be taking advantage of one's own wrong and putting a premium on the defaulter under the decree. (See in the case of Rabindra Narain Lall Vs. Smt. Nirmala Sinha & Ors. AIR 1978 Patna 162).
Bombay High Court
Naina D. Kamani vs Janson Engineering & Trading Pvt. ... on 18 August, 2011
Bench: R. S. Dalvi
