The court dismissed a suit for want of prosecution due to the petitioner's counsel stopping practice and failure to make arrangements for active prosecution.
Suit dismissed for want of prosecution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.1022 OF 1989
M/s.McDowell & Co. Ltd. (Polyymers Division) .. Plaintiff and The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. .. Plaintiff Versus M/s.Universal Trading Company .. Defendant.
None for parties.
CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATE : 4th September 2009.
P.C.:
1] Mr.U.Ramdas appearing for plaintiff has stopped active practice and it is stated that he has informed his clients accordingly. However, it appears that no arrangement is made by the plaintiffs despite receipt of such intimation. Plaintiffs were absent on 8th June 2009 and 24th Jne 2009. In these circumstances, the suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)
M/s.McDowell & Co. Ltd. (Polyymers Division)
M/s.Universal Trading Company
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
