The court noted that a written statement was filed only by Defendant No.1, leaving Defendant No.2 without one. The matter was placed for an ex-parte decree against Defendants 1 and 2.
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
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3527 OF 2008
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1776 OF 2003
Gobindram Harumal Ahuja.
... Plaintiff.
V/s.
Shri Ratan Irani & Ors.
... Defendants.
Mr. P. Haindaday for the Plaintiff. Mr. C. Shah for Defendant No.3.
CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.
12TH FEBRUARY 2009.
P.C. :
| . | It is n | ot necessary t | o pass an | y orders on | this | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Notice | of Motion |
because | what | I no |
ticed | from th |
e reco |
rd is |
| that | the wr |
itten state |
ment | is filed |
by | Defen | dant | No.1. |
| That | written | statement | filed | dated |
21st | October | 2008 | is |
| under | objection. | The | writte | n statem |
ent | is only |
filed | by |
Defendant No.1 and there is no written statement on behalf
of Defendant No.2.
| 2. In these ci |
rcumstance | s, the matter can | be placed | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| for ex-parte decree |
against | Defendant | Nos. | 1 | and | 2 |
and at |
| the request of |
Mr. | Haindaday, | place | on | 4th | March | 2009. |
| The Plaintiff |
to file |
original |
docum | ents | alon | gwith | list. |
| Needless to state |
that |
if the |
decree | is | passe | d, the |
Court |
will make appropriate orders with regard to withdrawal of
the amounts deposited in the Court.
(S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)
Shri Ratan Irani
C. J. Dharmadhikari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
