The Court allowed the Plaintiff to withdraw a deposited sum by furnishing a bank guarantee. It listed parties to file evidence affidavits by a specific date and placed the suit on for directions.
Plaintiff allowed to withdraw Rs. 2 lacs deposit on furnishing a bank guarantee of the same amount.
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 10.chs-1855-11
I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
jmi
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1855 OF 2011 IN
SUIT NO. 3225 OF 2006.
Mohanlal Bhoorji Solanki. ..Plaintiff. vs. Ganesh Atmaram Puranik. ..Defendant. And Smt. Indirabai V. Kale & Anr. ..Respondents.
Mr. Krunal Sampat, i/b. S.K. Jain & Associates, for Plaintiff. Ms. P. Badadare, for Defendant.
CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 11TH JANUARY 2012.
P.C. :
Pursuant to the order dated 23rd December 2011, the Defendant has filed the Affidavit-in-Reply to the Chamber Summons and has submitted through his Advocate that he continues to be the proprietor of M/s. Amar Optician and Watch Company. In view thereof, the Plaintiff is not required to carry out any amendments to the Plaint.
2 10.chs-1855-11
guarantee of a nationalised Bank in the sum of Rs. 2 lacs to the satisfaction of the Prothonotary and Senior Master. The said bank guarantee shall be renewed from time to time until the Suit is finally disposed of. The Chamber Summons is accordingly disposed of.
[ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]
Mohanlal Bhoorji Solanki
Ganesh Atmaram Puranik
Smt. Indirabai V. Kale
S.J. KATHAWALLA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
