Allowed

Datar Switchgear Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Nov 2005CHS/1272/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-judge bench allowed the applicant to amend its memo of appeal by adding three new grounds, including one relied on a missing document, noting that respondents could forcibly oppose such grounds during the hearing.

What did the court decide?

Chamber summons granted permitting amendment of the memo of appeal by adding grounds 183, 184, and 185 (less the bracketed portion) within two weeks.

Datar Switchgear Ltd. Vs Maharashtra State Electricity… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J.

¶3

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1272 OF 2005 IN APPEAL NO.672 OF 2005 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.374 OF 2004

¶4

Datar Switchgear Limited .. Applicant v/s. Maharashtra State Electricity Board & ors. .. Respondents Mr.R.A.Dada, senior counsel with Mr.Vaibhav Joglekar and Mr.C.S.Balsara i/by M/s.S.Mohmedbhai & Co. for the applicant. Mr.Gaurav Joshi i/by M/s.Little & Co. for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : R.M.LODHA AND D.G.KARNIK, JJ. DATED : 19th November, 2005 P.C. Heard Mr.R.A.Dada, the learned senior counsel for the appellant-applicant and Mr.Gaurav Joshi, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. By this chamber summons, the appellant prays for addition of three new grounds as set out in schedule ‘A’. The appellant-applicant has also prayed for annexing the copy of the letter dated August 30, 2004 alongwith the compilation of the appeal. 3. As regards the proposed ground Nos.183 and 184 set out in schedule ‘A’, we are of the view that the said grounds may be allowed to be added in the

¶5

¶6

memo of appeal.

¶7

4.	In so	far as	propose	d ground	No.185	is
concerned,	the	learned cou	nsel	for the	resp	ondents
raised	two-fold	objection viz.		(i) that	no	such
ground	was	raised by	the	appellant	before	the
learned	Single	Judge.	and	(ii) that	the	letter
dated	August 3	0,2004 upon	whic	h reliance	is	sought
to	be placed	by the a	ppellant	was not	produced	by

¶8

the present appellant before the learned Single

¶9

Judge.

¶10

5.	Confronted	wit	h th	e difficu	lty	that the	letter
dated	August	30,	2004	was not	produ	ced by	the
appellant	before	the	lea	rned Si	ngle	Judge,	Mr.R.A.
Dada,	the lea	rned	senior	counsel	for	the	appellant
submits	that	the	app	ellant does	not	insist	on
production	of	the	said	document	in	appeal.	In
view	thereof,	we	are	satisfied	that	the	proposed

¶11

ground No.185 may be allowed to be added save and

¶12

except the bracketed portion.

¶13

6.	In	what	we	have	noticed	above,	obviously,	no
further	order	needs	to	be	passed	in	respect of	the

¶14

amendment in the compilation of appeal by adding

¶15

copy of the letter dated August 30, 2004.

¶16

7.	Chamber		summons	is,	accord	ingly, granted by
permitting	the	appel	lant t	o am	end	the memo of
appeal	by	adding	grounds	183,	184	and 185 (save
and	except	the	bracketed	porti	on).	The amendment
in	the memo	of	appeal	shall	be	carried out within

¶17

¶18

two	weeks	from	today	and	amended	copy	of	the	memo
of	appeal	shall	be	served	on the	re	sponde	nts.	At
the	time	of	hearing	of	the appeal,	it		shall	be
open	to	the	responden	ts to	urge	that	the		grounds

¶19

which were not raised before the learned Single

¶20

Judge should not be considered.

¶21

Chamber summons stands disposed of

¶22

accordingly.

¶23

(R.M.LODHA, J.)

¶24

(D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Datar Switchgear Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Datar Switchgear Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra P. Shah. Vs Canara Bank and Ors.

Mahendra P. Shah Vs Canara Bank and Ors. and M/S. K. D. Corpn.

M/S. Saral Enterprises and Ors. Vs Ashok Thapar and Ors.

M/S S and S Enterprises Vs Mr Hasmukh Shivlal Desai and Anr.

Shoppers Delight Pvt. Ltd. Vs Lake View Developers and Ors.

Union of India Vs M/S. Khannoco Steel Merchants Pvt.Ltd.