Disposed

m/s shah enterprises v. privi vallabh bhalchandra rawat and Ors. and subhash r. pandit and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Dec 2007CHS/936/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants sought to implead legal heirs of a deceased respondent. The High Court accepted the affidavit, condoned the delay for good cause, set aside the abatement order, and allowed the impleading of the legal heir.

What did the court decide?

Abatement order set aside; legal heir allowed to be impleaded as respondent no. 3(a); delay condoned.

m/s shah enterprises Vs privi vallabh… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

ssm

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.936 OF 2007
IN
APPEAL NO. 208 OF 2000
IN
REVIEW PETITION NO. 8 OF 2000
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2191 OF 1994
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1529 OF 1995
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 374 OF 1997
IN
SUIT NO. 3387 OF 1994

¶4

M/s. Shah Enterprises

¶5

...Appellants.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Prithvi Vallabh Bhalchandra Rawat
and Ors....Respondents.

¶8

AND
1(a) Subhash Ramkrishna Pandit
& Ors....Co-Respondents.

¶9

Mr. Lapasiya and Y.M. Chaudhari i/by M/s. Niranjan
and Co. for the Appellants.

¶10

Ms. Patrawala i/by Mr. Pravin Mehta & Mithi & Co.
for intervenor.

¶11

Mr. S.A. Sawant with Mr. Kantilal Kanojia i/by Mr.
P.N. Patwardhan for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶12

Mr. D.V.Sutar for the Respondent No. 3(c).

¶13

CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.

¶14

DATED : 19TH DECEMBER, 2007

¶15

P.C.

¶16

. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellants, the

¶17

( 2 )

¶18

learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the
Respondent No.3(c). The learned counsel for the
Appellants tendered the affidavit of service.
Respondent Nos.3(a) and 3(b) are not present before
the Court.

¶19

2. By this Chamber Summons the learned counsel for
the Appellants is seeking to bring on record the Legal
Heirs of the deceased Respondent No.3. The learned
counsel for the Respondent No.3 (c) categorically
states that the Respondent No.3 (c)-Balchandra
Vishwanath Rawat is sole Legal Heir of Respondent No.3
whereas the Respondent Nos.3(a) and 3(b) have nothing
to do. In view thereof, in place of original
Respondent No.3, Respondent No.3(c) be impleaded as
Respondent No.3(a) and be re-numbered accordingly.
The affidavit of service is taken on record.

¶20

3. Perused the Chamber Summons and affidavit in
support thereof. For the reasons stated therein,
sufficient cause is made out to grant chamber summons
and the delay in taking out this chamber summons is
condoned. There is no case of inaction, negligence or
for want of bonafide on the part of the Appellant.
The abatement order dated 16.6.2007 is set aside. The

¶21

( 3 )

¶22

legal heir is allowed to be impleaded.

¶23

4. Amendment to be carried out within a period of
four weeks from today. Appeal be placed on board for
final hearing on 21st January, 2008. Amended copy be
served on Respondent No.3(a) and also on Respondent
Nos.1 and 2.

¶24

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

¶25

(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)

m/s shah enterprises v. privi vallabh bhalchandra rawat and Ors. and subhash r. pandit and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

m/s shah enterprises v. privi vallabh bhalchandra rawat and Ors. and subhash r. pandit 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

kansai nerolac paints Ltd. Vs shri anand shivram samant and Anr.

pushpa suryakant pandule Vs sulochana rajaram hindalekar

silverline technologies Ltd. Vs hsbc bank usa and Ors.

Bengal Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Ion Exchange (India)Ltd.

The Sangli Bank Ltd. Vs Bank of Maharashtra and Anr.

I.T.C.Ltd. Vs Gtc Industries Ltd.and Anr.