Dismissed

Shriram Chits (Maharashtra) Ltd. v. Lakha @ Lakhvinder Singh Chahal

Bombay HC23 Nov 2011NMS/2453/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Notice of Motion seeking condonation of delay and restoration of Summary Suit No. 1910 of 2004, finding the Plaintiff's excuses regarding office shift and theft to be mere negligence without sufficient cause for non-appearance in 2004.

What did the court decide?

The Notice of Motion praying for condonation of delay and restoration of the Summary Suit was dismissed.

Shriram Chits (Maharashtra) Ltd. Vs Lakha @… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 29.nms-2453-09

¶2

I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

jmi

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2453 OF 2009 IN

¶6

SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1910 OF 2004.

¶7

Shriram Chits (Maharashtra) Limited. ..Plaintiff.

¶8

vs.

¶9

Mr. Lakhvinder Singh Chahal. ..Defendant.

¶10

Ms. Archana Sarte, i/b. Sai Kumar Pathrudu, for Plaintiff. None for Defendant.

¶11

CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 23RD NOVEMBER 2011.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

In the above Notice of Motion, the Plaintiff has prayed for condonation of delay and has further prayed that the order dated 15^th June 2004 rejecting the Summary Suit No. 1910 of 2004 be set aside and the Suit be restored to file.

¶14

The order dated 15^th June 2004 by which the above Summary Suit was dismissed reads thus :-

¶15

“ The Plaintiff and/or their Advocate to remove office objections on the Plaint and get the same numbered and registered on or before 29-06-2004, failing which the Plaint to stand rejected under Rule 986.”

¶16

The reason given on behalf of the Plaintiff in support of the Notice of Motion for non-appearance before the Court on 15^th June 2004 is that the office premises of the Plaintiff was shifted from Dadar to CBD Belapur and on two occasions, there were thefts of computers from the office of the Plaintiff Company. It is also contended that the senior staff members from Accounts and Legal

¶17

2 29.nms-2453-09

¶18

Department of the Plaintiff Company had resigned.

¶19

The Advocate who has taken out the present Notice of Motion is Shri Sai Kumar Pathrudu M., who is representing the Plaintiff Company in the above Suit since 19^th July 2005. The office of the Plaintiff Company is admittedly shifted some time in March 2007. No particulars have been given about the officers of the Plaintiff Company who have allegedly resigned. The alleged theft of computers has taken place on 17^th November 2006 and 26^th February 2007. The Plaintiff has not explained the connection between the change in office address or the theft of computers and nonappearance in the matter before this Court on 15^th June 2004. Though the Suit is filed in the year 2004, the Plaintiff Company has also not served the Writ of Summons on the Defendants. As set out hereinabove, the learned Advocate who has taken out the present Notice of Motion is admittedly on record since 19^th July 2005. However, not a whisper is made in the Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion, as to why the said Advocate has not appeared before this Court on 15^th June 2004 when the Suit was called out before the Prothonotary and Senior Master. In view thereof, no cause much less sufficient cause is shown by the Plaintiff as to why the Suit was not attended to when called out before this Court on 15^th June 2004. I am therefore convinced that the Plaintiff was just negligent in pursuing the above Suit and the reasons of change of office, theft of computer and resignations by the Senior staff members from the Accounts and Legal Department are mere excuses. The Notice of Motion is therefore dismissed.

Shriram Chits (Maharashtra) Ltd. v. Lakha @ Lakhvinder Singh Chahal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram Chits (Maharashtra) Ltd. v. Lakha @ Lakhvinder Singh Chahal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Association of Engineering Workers Vs Metal Box India Limited

M/S Oberoi Towers and Oberoi Vs Prakash Satawan Palav

Asrar Ahmed Chief Pramotar of Gulab Bldg. Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. ( Prop) . Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Shriram Chits (Maharashtra) Ltd. Vs Mrs. Amarjeet Kaur Gothra and Three Ors.

Krishan Dutt Sharma S/O Rameshwar Prasad Vs L and T Finance Ltd. and Anr.

M/S. Al-Can Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs Prestige H.M. Polycontainers Limited and 7 Ors.