Dismissed

Naina Deepak Kamani v. Janson Engineering and Trading P. Ltd. and Ors. and the Court Receiver Pushpa Kadambande

Bombay HC28 Mar 2007NMS/696/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the notice of motion filed by the plaintiff/challenger's successor, holding the claim of fraud is not maintainable as the defendant participated in earlier proceedings. Questions of fraud involving non-disclosure of respondent no.2's interest were settled by the apex court.

What did the court decide?

The motion is dismissed; exemplary costs may be imposed if a similar plea is moved in future.

Naina Deepak Kamani Vs Janson Engineering and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.696 OF 2007
IN
SUIT NO.2429 OF 1997
Naina Deepak Kamani .. Plaintiff

¶3

Naina Deepak Kamani

¶4

¶5

Janson Engineering & Trading P.Ltd & or s. Defendants

¶6

The Court Receiver Mrs Pushpa Kadambande

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

Ms.Sheetal Kumar with Ms M.M.Patel i/b H.H.Patel for Plaintiff Mr.J.S.Chandanani for Defendant No.7

¶9

Ms.Bina Pai, Mr.R.V.Pai i/b Mr.R.V.Kocharekar for Respondent no.2

¶10

CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATE : 28th March, 2007

¶11

P.C.

¶12

This motion is ill-advised for more than one
reason. In the first place, grievance that the
order passed by this Court on 7th February, 2000
was on account of the fraud played by the plaintiff
on this court, it does not command to me. In any
case this grievance cannot be heard at the instance

¶13

of defendant no.7, who participated in the earlier

¶14

proceedings.

¶15

Be that as it may, the necessity of considering
the claim of respondent no. 2, who was not before
the Court when earlier order was passed, was
considered right up to the apex court. The
respondent no. 2 herself filed S.L.P.before the

¶16

¶17

apex	Court	being	S.L.	P.(Civi	l)	No.3967		of	2001
which	has	been	disposed	of	by	order		dated	29th
July,	2002.	The	argumen	t t	hat	the	order	dated	7th
February,	2000	be set	aside	on		account	of	the	fraud
played	by	the	plaintiff	by	non	discl	osure	of	the

¶18

interest of the respondent no.2, therefore will

¶19

have to be stated to be rejected.

¶20

3. I see no propriety for entertaining this motion

¶21

at the instance of the defendant no.7.

¶22

4. of the suit stage.	All will be decided	questions at the approp	on riate	merits	on the	main	tainability
5.	It is	made	clear	that	if any		further
application	is	moved	at	the	instance	of	the
defendant	no.	7,	on	such	unstatable	plea	in
future,	the	Court	may	consi	der of		imposing

¶23

exemplary costs as may be warranted at the relevant

¶24

time.

¶25

(A.M.Khanwilkar, J)

Naina Deepak Kamani v. Janson Engineering and Trading P. Ltd. and Ors. and the Court Receiver Pushpa Kadambande

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naina Deepak Kamani v. Janson Engineering and Trading P. Ltd. and Ors. and the Court Receiver Pushpa Kadambande

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hiondustan Costruction Co. Ltd. Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Vs M/S. Akai Impex Ltd. and Ors.

Narendrakumar S/O Pratapsingh Jhota Vs Deepak S/O Narendrakumar Jhota and 2 Ors.

Barter Leasing and Finance Ltd. Vs Umesh B. Duggal and Ors. and Jayaram B. Shjetty and the Hon Secretary Neelam Nagar BLDG.9 Co-Op Hsg

Arya Chanakya Nagar Govind Madhav Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs Eknath G. Joshi and Ors.

Tarla N. Morjaria and Ors. Vs Bipin Hiralal Shah and Anr.