Published on: December 09, 2023 at 17:26 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Bank of India V. Lekhimoni Das (2000)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that if a litigant has two remedies available under law, then one of them should not be taken as operating in derogation of the other. However, if a Litigant has elected to pursue one remedy he is bound by it and cannot on his failing therein proceed under another provision.
8. As a general principle where two remedies are available under law one of them should not be taken as operating in derogation of the other. A regular suit will not be barred by a summary and a concurrent remedy being also provided therefor, but if a party has elected to pursue one remedy he is bound by it and cannot on his failing therein proceed under another provision. A regular suit for compensation is not barred by the omission to proceed under the summary procedure provided under Section 95 CPC, but if an application is made and disposed of, such disposal would operate as a bar to a regular suit, whatever may be the result of the application. There is, however, a difference between conditions necessary for the maintainability of an application under Section 95 CPC and those necessary to maintain a suit.
The regular suit is based on tort for abusing the process of court. Under the law of torts in a suit for compensation for the tort the plaintiff must not only prove want of a reasonable or probable cause of obtaining injunction but also that the defendant was attracted by malice which is an improper motive.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
