Allowed

Bachher Investment P Ltd. v. Model Mig Co. Op Housing Society Ltd.

Bombay HC9 Sept 2009NMA/2893/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the single judge's order dismissing a notice of motion due to counsel's absence. The matter was remanded for final hearing subject to the appellant paying Rs.2,500 as cost, a condition precedent for hearing.

What did the court decide?

Order set aside and matter remanded for final hearing of notice of motion subject to payment of Rs.2,500 as cost.

Bachher Investment P Ltd. Vs Model Mig Co. Op… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

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

¶2

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2893 OF 2009 IN APPEAL NO.314 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1673 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO. 1434 OF 2006

¶3

Bachher Investment Pvt.Ltd. Versus

¶4

Model Mig Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. (Regd.)

¶5

... Appellant

¶6

... Respondent

¶7

Mr. J.P. Sen i/by M/s. D. Dadhich & Kalambi for the appellant. Mr. Birendra Saraf i/by M/s. I.C. Legal for the respondent.

¶8

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATED : 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2009

¶9

P.C.

¶10

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 9th June, 2009 vide which the notice of motion was dismissed despite the fact that the counsel appearing for the applicant was stated to be unwell and adjournment was prayed for.

¶11

We cannot ignore the fact that the learned Judge noticed that the notice of motion remained pending since 2006 and therefore, declined to grant any further adjournment and expected the applicant to engage another advocate and argue the matter on merits. May be, the interest

¶12

of justice would have demanded a conditional order by imposition of costs without finally disposing of the notice of motion at that stage.

¶13

We are really not influenced by the contentions raised before us but without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, we set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge finding that justifiable reason was shown for absence of the counsel on 9th June, 2009 but the applicant having delayed the hearing of the application was certainly liable to pay some cost.

¶14

In these circumstances, we set aside the order and remand the matter for hearing of the notice of motion finally, however, subject to payment of Rs.2500/- as cost. The cost being condition precedent to the hearing of the notice of motion. Application does not survive and disposed of accordingly.

¶15

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶16

A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

Bachher Investment P Ltd. v. Model Mig Co. Op Housing Society Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bachher Investment P Ltd. v. Model Mig Co. Op Housing Society Ltd.

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

Savita Mukund Kelkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. D.V. Bhore Vs Shri Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sanstha and Others

Damaji Yeswant Vaidya and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vedprakash Parashnath Pandey Vs the Secretary/President - Uttarbharti Education Society and Ors.

Changunabai Krishna Nikam Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Sapphire Land Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dheeraj Gaurav Heights III Co. Op Housing Society Ltd.