Suit dismissed for want of prosecution due to continued absence of the plaintiff who declined an adjourned call for ex parte decree.
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 O. O. C. J.
SUMMARY SUIT NO.930 OF 2003
RMK Special Cables. ...Plaintiff. Vs. Bermaco Energy System Ltd. ...Defendant. .... None for the Plaintiff. Mr. for the Defendant.
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.
September 17, 2009 .
P.C.
On 16th September 2009, the suit was called out for ex-
parte decree, but the Plaintiff and its Advocate were absent. In order to furnish one more opportunity to the Plaintiff, the suit was kept under the caption of dismissal today. The Plaintiff and its Advocate continued to remain absent. In these circumstances, the suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
