Disposed

M/S Mangla International Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Ors. v. Mid Day Multimedia Ltd.

Bombay HC27 Jul 2012CHS/67/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Respondent filed a chamber summons for condonation of delay in filing an application for leave to defend a Summary Suit. The court noted insufficient explanation for the delay but condoned it, directed payment of costs, and disposed of the summons.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; Defendant directed to pay costs and file affidavit within two weeks.

M/S Mangla International Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Ors… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2012)

kvm

CHS67_12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 67 OF 2012 IN SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 316 OF 2010 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 411 OF 2009

¶6

M/s. Mangla International Pvt.Ltd. & Ors.

¶7

..... Plaintiffs

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Mid Day Multimedia Ltd.

¶10

..... Defendants

¶11

Mr.R.Krishan, i/b. Shah Legal for the Plaintiffs.

¶12

Mr.Abhishek Pungliya, i/b. Mr.Madhur R.Baya for the Defendants.

¶13

CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J.

¶14

DATE : 27th JULY, 2012.

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

The Defendants have taken out this Chamber Summons for condonation of

¶17

delay of 485 days in filing application for leave to defend the Summary Suit.

¶18

I have perused the affidavit in support and I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties.

¶19

In the affidavit in support, the Defendants have explained that during the period between 2010 and 2011, Defendants were undergoing a major corporate

kvm

CHS67_12

restructuring of its business operation and after following process under Companies Act by the Defendants, an application was made by way of Company Petition No.25 of 2010 before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court. By an Order dated 21^st December, 2011, the Allahabad High Court approved the Scheme of the Arrangement w.e.f. 1^st April 2010. The Plaintiffs have filed affidavit opposing the delay on the ground that even in filing Vakalatnama there was a gross delay on the part of the Defendants and that the Defendants have deliberately delayed the hearing of the Summons for Judgement and/or passing of a decree.

¶24

In my opinion, though the Defendants have not explained the delay sufficiently in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if I condone this delay and direct the Defendant to pay the cost of Rs.25,000/- to the Plaintiff within a period of two weeks from today.

¶25

I, therefore, pass the following order :-

¶26

(a) Delay in filing affidavit in reply is condoned.

¶27

(b) Office is directed to accept the affidavit in reply

¶28

of the Defendants within two weeks from today upon

¶29

the Defendants paying cost of Rs.25,000/- as a condition precedent to the Plaintiff and producing proof thereof.

kvm

CHS67_12

within one week thereafter.

¶35

(d) Chamber Summons is disposed of accordingly.

¶36

(e) Summons for Judgment to be placed on Board

¶37

for hearing on 3^rd September, 2012.

M/S Mangla International Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Ors. v. Mid Day Multimedia Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Mangla International Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Ors. v. Mid Day Multimedia Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Machinfabrik Vs Biovet Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Machinfabrik Vs Biovet Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Shri Milind Shripad Chandurkar Vs Shri Kalim Ahamad M. Khan

M/S Mangla International Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Ors. Vs Mid Day Multimedia Ltd.

Speed Trade Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd.

Speed Trade Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs Maliram Makharia Finstock Pvt. Ltd.