Disposed

Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Pradeep Gordhandas Vora and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Apr 2006CHS/951/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted a chamber summons for condonation of a six-year delay in complying with previous orders regarding suit amendment, rejecting the explanation of the lawyers' negligence while noting the plaintiff's overall conduct was negligent.

What did the court decide?

Chamber summons granted in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (f) for condonation of delay. Plaintiffs directed to pay costs of Rs.25,000 each to defendants and comply with amendment by 18.4.06.

Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. and Ors. Vs Pradeep… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.951 OF 2005
 IN
 SUIT NO.1088 OF 1973

¶5

 Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd.
 and Ors. ..Plaintiffs
 Vs.

¶6

 Pradeep Gordhandas Vora and Ors. ..Defendants
 And

¶7

 Rungta Estate P.Ltd. ..Respondent

¶8

 Mr.Milind Vasudeo a/w Munir Merchant for the
 plaintiffs

¶9

 Mr.J.P.Sen i/b F.Z.B. and Associates for the
 defendant no.1(a)

¶10

 Mr.Ramakant Yadav i/b Theba and Associates for
 Official Liquidator

¶11

 CORAM : S.U.KAMDAR, J
DATED : 13TH APRIL, 2006
 P.C.:

¶12

 1. The present chamber summons is taken out

¶13

 for condonation of delay of 6 years in complying
 with the order dt.9.7.99 passed in Chamber Summons
 no.847 of 1998. There is also non compliance of

¶14

¶15

 the orders dt.3.12.90 15.1.91 and 9.7.99. By

¶16

 prayer clause (c), (d), (e) and (f), the plaintiffs
 are seeking to set aside the abatement and to bring
 legal heirs of plaintiff nos.5 and 12 on record.
 There is serious delay in carrying out various
 orders under which amendment are granted.

¶17

 2. The most disturbing feature in this case is
 suit is of 1973 i.e. 31 years old and inspite of
 that plaintiffs is not serious in prosecuting the
 suit. Inspite of granting the orders of amendment
 he would not even carry out same in accordance with
 the procedure prescribed and even extensions are
 obtained but inspite of that there are non
 compliance of the orders.

¶18

 3. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs
 appearing in support of chamber summons states that
 earlier advocate did not intimate the plaintiffs
 that the suit is required to be re-declared. I am
 not satisfied with he explanation furnished.
 Plaintiff is negligent in prosecuting the present
 suit. The only reason for which I seek to
 intervene and grant condonation of delay is

¶19

¶20

 interest of Justice because dismissing the Chamber
 Summons would result in dismissal of suit and that
 would result in lot of injustice to the plaintiffs.
 However, the negligent conduct as evident from the
 present proceeding cannot be left unpunished.

¶21

 4. In that light of the matter, I grant the
 Chamber Summons in terms of prayer clause (a) to

¶22

 (f). I direct the plaintiffs to pay cost to
 defendant no.1(a) and defendant no.2 being Official
 Liquidator quantified at Rs.25000 each. Cost to be
 paid on or before 18.4.06. Amendment to be carried
 out by 18.4.06. If amendment is not carried out by
 18.4.06, matter to be placed on board for dismissal
 on 19.4.06.

Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Pradeep Gordhandas Vora and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Pradeep Gordhandas Vora 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

Ms. Vaishali H. Parikh Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corpn. and 3 Ors.

Sicom Vs Digambar Mahadeo Bagwe and Ors.

Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh Vs G.K.W.Ltd.and Anr.

Lily Apartments Co.Op. Hsg. Socy. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Mrs. Mini Khera and Anr.

Rashtriya Kamgar Sanghatana and Anr. Vs G.K.W.Ltd.Sankey Electrical Stamping Divn. Mumbai

The Principal K.J.Somaiya College of Arts and Commerce and Ors. Vs Nalini v.Karnad and Ors.