The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the impugned order merely allowed a chamber summons for amendment and left contentions open, including validity of assignment, offering no reason to entertain the appeal.
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
APPL.139.2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL (L) NO.139 OF 2012 IN
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1577 OF 2010
Pratap G. Somaiya s/o Goverdhandas Appellant versus
Rajesh Thakker and others Respondents
Mr.Mukesh Vashi with Amit Gharte for appellant. Mr.Birendra Saraf i/by Apex Law for respondent no.6
CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND RANJIT MORE, J. DATE : March 19, 2012
PC :
. Since the order impugned in this appeal has merely allowed the Chamber Summons for amendment and learned Single Judge has kept all the contentions open including the contention about validity of the assignment, we see no reason to entertain the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
(CHIEF JUSTICE)
(RANJIT MORE, J.)
M.S.Thatte
Pratap G. Somaiya
Rajesh Thakker
MOHIT S. SHAH
RANJIT MORE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
