Disposed

The Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Company Limited and 3 Ors. v. Union of India and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC14 Sept 2007NMS/2573/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed defendants Notice of Motion to condone delay in filing written statement due to pendency of related writ petition and procedural history. Court imposed condition of payment of Rs. 2,000/- to Kirtikar Library against costs.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing written statement is condoned subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/- to the Kirtikar Library within three weeks.

The Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Company… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

MSS

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2573 OF 2007

¶6

IN

¶7

 SUIT NO. 1437 OF 1995

¶8

 THE TATA HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER
 SUPPLY CO. LTD. & ORS. .. PLAINTIFFS

¶9

Vs.

¶10

 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .. DEFENDANTS

¶11

 None for plaintiffs

¶12

 Ms. Nisha Valani with Mr. S.R. Rajguru for
 defendants

¶13

CORAM:SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.

¶14

DATE: SEPTEMBER14, 2007.

¶15

P.C.

¶16

 . This notice of motion is taken out by the
 defendants praying that the defendants’ written
 statement declared on 18th June, 2007 be taken on
 and delay in filing the same may be condoned. In
 the affidavit-in-support of the Chamber Summons
 following explanation is given:

¶17

 . "(7). I say that Summons in the aforesaid Suit

¶18

 filed on 14th March, 1995 was served upon the

¶19

¶20

 Defendants in or about January 1996 summoning the
 Defendants on 17th April, 1996 at 11.00 A.M. As
 per Note dated 12th April, 1996 on the docket of
 Law Ministry it is recorded that "For Drafting
 Written Statement, sent to Advocate".

¶21

 (i) The Plaint dated 14th March, 1995 was admitted
 on 19th April, 1995. Simultaneously the plaintiffs
 also filed Writ Petition No. 409 of 1995 for
 finalization of the value of all the imported cases
 / goods which were assessed provisionally. The
 Writ Petition No. 409 of 1995 was disposed of by
 orders dated 2nd February, 2005 passed by the
 Hon’ble Division Bench discharging Rule and with
 observations that Respondents have finalised
 provisional assessment and have passed order dated
 14th November, 2000 and hence the petitioners
 grievance is already redressed and nothing survives
 in the Writ Petition.

¶22

 (ii) As per Roznama dated 29th March, 2000 of the
 Learned Prothonotary &Senior Master, High Court,
 Bombay the Defendants i.e. the Union of India and
 their advocates were absent although the Defendants
 have entered their appearance through Mrs. S.
 Bhattacharya and hence the orders passed per Court

¶23

¶24

 are as follows:

¶25

 . "However, there is no Written Statement by any
 of the Defendants, Suit transferred to list of
 undefended suits and to appear after four weeks".

¶26

 (iii) The suit thereafter appeared on 15th March,
 2007 before the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohata when as
 per the roznama of the said date the same was
 adjourned for three weeks directing the plaintiffs
 to file affidavit of documents and evidence.

¶27

 (iv) On 12th June, 2007, the matter was SO to 14th
 June, 2007 and on 14th June, 2007 also the same was
 SO to 18th June, 2007 and was directed to be placed
 along with Suit No. 3800 of 1992 and on 19th June,
 2007 also the same was directed to SO for two weeks
 along with Suit No. 3800 of 1992. On 9th July,
 2007 when the suit was directed to be placed on the
 board on 18th July, 2007.

¶28

 . (8). I say that the Defendants affirmed the
 Written Statement on 18th June, 2007 but on 19th
 June, 2007, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohata indicated
 that separate application/Notice of Motion should
 be filed for filing Written Statement.

¶29

¶30

 . (9). I say that the delay has been caused in
 filing Written Statement because of pendency of two
 matters pertaining to the same subject matter i.e.
 Writ Petition No. 409 of 1995 and the aforesaid
 suit.

¶31

 2. None is representing the plaintiffs. The
 learned counsel for the defendants states that the
 defendants had served a notice on the plaintiffs.
 Affidavit of service of Shri A. K. Pandey,
 Appraiser, Customs, Docks (Import) Mumbai is filed.
 To the affidavit copy of the letter addressed by
 the learned counsel for the defendant to the
 plaintiffs is annexed. This letter states that the
 matter was adjourned to 24th August, 2007 and that
 the plaintiffs are required to attend the court.
 Xerox copy of docket of the notice of motion
 containing the acknowledgement of the plaintiffs in
 token of having received the notice of motion and
 affidavit in support is also annexed to the
 affidavit of service.

¶32

 3. However, on 24th August, 2007, the plaintiffs’
 counsel did not remain present. Hence the motion
 was adjourned for one week. On 13/9/07 also the

¶33

¶34

 learned counsel for the plaintiffs was not present.
 The suit was, therefore, adjourned to 14/9/07.
 Today again the learned counsel for the plaintiffs
 is not present.

¶35

 4. Hence for the reasons stated in the

¶36

 affidavit-in-support of the motion, which are
 quoted hereinabove, the delay in filing the written
 statement is condoned on the condition that the
 defendants pay costs quantified at Rs.2,000/- to
 the Kirtikar Library. If cash of Rs.2,000/- is not
 accepted, the defendants shall pay the said amount
 by way of cheque. The amount be paid within three
 weeks from today. The defendants shall satisfy the
 office that the amount is paid. On being satisfied
 the office shall take the written statement on
 file.

¶37

 5. Notice of motion is disposed of.

¶38

 JUDGE.

The Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Company Limited and 3 Ors. v. Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Company Limited and 3 Ors. v. Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lokhandwala Estates and Devplment Co. Vs Goregaon Siddharth Nagar Shankar Griha Nirman Sanstha Ltd.

Shirin Keki Panthaki Vs Nargis Pheroze Kharas and Ors.

Aristo Pharmaceuticals Ltd., New India Assuranceco.Ltd Vs Transport Corpn. of Indialtd

Gopikrishan S.Damani and Anr. Vs Supreme Industries Ltd. and Ors.

laxmi asbessstos product Ltd. Vs camco bulders india limited

Oommen Michael Vs Gayatriprasad Ramnaresh Pandey and Ors.