In a suit filed for non-appearance, the plaintiff was absent and had no instructions. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed the suit under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC.
Suit dismissed.
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.
mpt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO. 460 of 1991
J.C. Khandelwal & Anr... Plaintiffs
versus
Thomas Shipping Ltd. & Anr... Defendants
Ms.Uma Kabra and Ms.F. Shaikh i/b Narichania &
Narichania for the plaintiffs.
Mr.N.G. Raut for defendant no.1
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J
DATED : 4th May 2009
P.C.:
1.Learned counsel for the plaintiff reports no
instructions. Plaintiff is also absent when called.
2.Counsel for defendant no.1 is present. Suit
is dismissed under Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code of
Civil Procedure.
(D.G. KARNIK, J)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
D.G. KARNIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court