Writ petition challenging orders rejecting the petitioner's application to amend the plaint. The court held the amendment was barred under Order VI Rule 17 CPC as the petitioner failed to establish grounds for due diligence.
The writ petition was rejected.
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 WP 56/2011
abs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 56 OF 2011
M/s Vaibhav Aquafresh Limited
.. Petitioner
V/s
Cyrus Keki Balsara .. Respondent
Mr. Uday Warunjikar with Mr. S.A. Oak i/b Mahesh Menon & Co. for the petitioner.
Mr. J.P. Sen with Ms. Ferzana Behramkamdin and Ms. Swati Deshpande i/b FZTS & Associates for the respondent.
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J.
DATE : 17TH JANUARY 2011
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2 WP 56/2011
(D.G. KARNIK, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the application for amendment of plaint is barred because it was not filed before the end of trial with due diligence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Vaibhav Aquafresh Limited
Cyrus Keki Balsara
D.G. KARNIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
