Disposed

M/S. Vinayak Land Development Corpn. v. Shree Resham Textiles Mills Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Sept 2009CHS/1168/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants a prayer to amend the plaint in a suit for change of constitution. It also extends the time limit for carrying out amendments and schedules the posting for framing issues.

What did the court decide?

Amendment to the plaint permitted; time for amendment extended by four weeks; written statements and additional statements filed within limits.

M/S. Vinayak Land Development Corpn. Vs Shree Resham Textiles Mills Ltd. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2009) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1168 OF 2009

¶3

¶4

SUIT NO.1379 OF 1983

¶5

M/s.Vinayak Land Development Corporation .. Plaintiff Versus Shree Resham Textile Mills Ltd. & Ors. .. Defendants

¶6

Mr.Kirit Mody with Sonal Awasthi i/b. Vinod Mistry & Co. for plaintiff Mr.Avinash Joshi with Vipul Bilve i/b. Mulla & Mulla for defendant No.1 Mr.Gautam Bhagwat i/b. Divekar & Co. for defendant Nos. 2 to 4.

¶7

CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶8

DATE : 14^h September 2009.

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

1] This is an application to amend the plaint so as to incorporate the

¶11

subsequent development. It is stated that the plaintiff, earlier was a partnership firm but has now become sole proprietorship business of one Maruti Bhulajibhai Thakur, Karta and Manager of M.D.Thakur, HUF. He has relied upon the documents to substantiate the pleas in the affidavit in support with regard to the change of constitution and the manner in which the business is carried on. The first defendant has stated that there

¶12

¶13

is enormous and unexplained delay in moving this chamber summons. Secondly, the documents referred to in the affidavit in support of this chamber summons so also affidavit in evidence do not substantiate and prove that the plaintiff has undergone any change or that the deponent of the affidavit represents the plaintiff or can seek any relief in law.

¶14

2] In my view, merely because the plaint is permitted to be amended does not mean that this Court has accepted any of the statements made either in the affidavit in support of this chamber summons or the affidavit in evidence. It would be open for the first defendant to dispute correctness of the statements so also the question the contents of the documents relied upon in cross examination of the witness and even by raising appropriate pleas. Keeping open all such contentions and arguments and reserving the right of the first defendant and others to cross examine the plaintiff, this chamber summons is granted. It is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Amendments to be carried out within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Let the amended plaint be served on all defendants within a period of four weeks from the date the amendments are carried out. All parties

¶15

¶16

must file their written statements/ additional written statement within six weeks from the date of receipt of the amended plaint. Post the suit for framing additional issues and for directions of trial after ten weeks.

¶17

3] At this stage at the request of Mr.Modi and as a last chance time to carry out amendment granted vide order 29^th August 2009 in Chamber Summons No.1202 of 2009 in this very suit is extended by four weeks from today. No further extension will be granted.

¶18

(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)

M/S. Vinayak Land Development Corpn. v. Shree Resham Textiles Mills Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Vinayak Land Development Corpn. v. Shree Resham Textiles Mills Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India Vs Rohit Tiwari

Prerna Sanjay Vedak and 2 Ors. Vs Amol Pandharinath Vedak

Ramesh Pannalal Ranawat proprietor of M/s. Ramesh Zaveri and Co. Vs Manjunath Proprietor of M/s. Suraj Jewel Palace

Municipal Corporation for the City of Kalyan and Dombivli Vs Leo Advertising and Marketing Co.

Satish T. Mehta Vs Arr Industrial Network

Shadilal and Sons Vs Amit Raj Akela and Anr.