TAMILNADU JAI BHARATH MILLS LTD. vs HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPN. LTD. — C.A. No. 4931/2004

Case under Section I-B. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010121312000

Filing Date

24-Jul-2000

Registration No

C.A. No. 4931/2004

Diary Number

12131/2000

Order Date

07-May-2008

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Allowed

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Section I-B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.TAMILNADU JAI BHARATH MILLS LTD.

    Adv. A. V. RANGAM (Dead / Retired / Elevated)

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPN. LTD.

    Adv. K. K. MANI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 06-May-2008

    Judgment - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 23-Apr-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 11-Mar-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 12-Dec-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 30-Jul-2004

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 16-Jan-2004

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 12-Dec-2003

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 25-Jul-2003

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 02-May-2003

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 28-Mar-2003

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 28-Feb-2003

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 24-Jul-2000

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 4931/2004

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Tamil Nadu Jai Bharath Mills Ltd. v. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed all appeals (CA 4931/2004, 4938/2004, 4939/2004, 4940/2004, 4932-4933/2004, and 4934-4937/2004) and set aside the impugned orders. The complaints were dismissed, finding that complainants should have filed properly constituted civil suits in competent civil courts rather than pursuing consumer forum complaints. Direction: The complainants were granted liberty to file civil suits. Crucially, the Court directed that if Section 14 Limitation Act petitions are filed with the plaints, the time spent from the date of filing the original complaints until May 7, 2008 shall be excluded from the limitation period, recognizing the complainants' bona fide prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case