Allowed

Shri. Vinayaka Ice Creams Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Ashwina Parashar Mehta and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Sept 2008CHSW/149/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay accepted a chamber summons to amend the record of Writ Petition No. 632 of 1994. The court allowed substitution of the deceased respondent with their legal heirs and directed the necessary procedural amendments.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the chamber summons; permitted substitution of the deceased respondent by his legal heirs.

Shri. Vinayaka Ice Creams Pvt. Ltd. and Ors… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 149 OF 2008

¶4

IN

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO. 632 OF 1994

¶6

 Vinayaka Ice creams

¶7

 (Pvt.) Ltd., & Ors. .. Petitioners.
 vs.

¶8

 The State of Maharashtra
 & Ors. .. Respondents.
 And

¶9

 Ashwina Parashar Mehta & Ors. .. Applicant.

¶10

 Mr. Brijesh Upadhyay i/by Purnand & Co.

¶11

 for the petitioers.

¶12

 Mr. Sushant D. chavan i/by Shirodkar & Co.

¶13

 for respondent No. 5.

¶14

 Mr. Pradeep Jadhav, AGP., for Respondent/State.

¶15

CORAM: J.N. PATEL, &
 K.K. TATED, JJ.

¶16

DATE: 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2008.

¶17

 P.C.

¶18

 . Heard.

¶19

¶20

 2. This chamber summons is taken out to bring on
 record the legal heirs of the deceased Respondent No.
 5 who expired on 3.12.2007 leaving behind him his wife
 and two sons who are being sought to be impleaded as
 respondent nos. 5(a) to 5(c). It is the case of the
 petitioners that the petitioners learnt about it when
 the matter came up for final hearing on 10.6.2008 when
 the Advocate for respondent no. 5 pointed out about
 death of Respondent NO. 5. The learned counsel who
 was originally appearing for the said respondent no. 5
 waives service for the proposed respondents and has no
 objection if they are brought on record. Therefore, we
 allow the chamber summons. We permit the petitioners
 to substitute the deceased respondent no. 5 by his
 legal heirs i.e. proposed respondent nos. 5 (a) to 5
 (c). Necessary amendment to be carried out within four
 weeks.

¶21

 3. The petitioners to place on record the amended
 copy of the writ petition and also furnish copies of
 the same to the respondents.

¶22

(J.N. Patel, J.)

¶23

(K.K. Tated J.)

Shri. Vinayaka Ice Creams Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Ashwina Parashar Mehta and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Vinayaka Ice Creams Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Ashwina Parashar Mehta 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

Samiulla Noormohammed and Ors. Vs the State Maharashtra and Ors.

Mukhtari Begum and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Monisha Roy Wife Abhijit Roy

Vinayaka Ice Creams (Pvt) Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. and Sudha Widow of Hadhukar Mehta (Applicant)

Janhit Manch and Ors. Vs Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority and Ors.

Sandeep Saradchandra Thakur Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.