Dismissed

Azad Finance and Trading Investment Ltd. v. Shri Satyanarayan Nanglia

Bombay HC10 Jul 2013APP/359/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed the appeal by the appellant against the single judge's order dismissing a motion for clarification. The court noted unexplained delay since the initial withdrawal in 2002 and left the suit open for expeditious hearing in the trial court.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. The suit may be set down for early hearing upon request by the Appellant to the trial Judge.

Azad Finance and Trading Investment Ltd. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

app (lodg) 703-2012

1/2

sat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 703 OF 2012 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3862 OF 2009 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 817 OF 2000

¶7

Azad Finance & Trading Investment Limited vs

¶8

Shri Satyanarayan Nanglia

¶9

...Appellant

¶10

..Respondent

¶11

..... Mr. Cyrus Ardeshir with Mr.Darshan Mehta i/b. M/s.Dhruve Liladhar & Co. for the Appellant. None for the Respondent.

¶12

CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, AND S.C. GUPTE, JJ.

¶13

10 JULY 2013

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

On the delay being condoned, the Appeal has been taken on board and has been called out for admission by consent.

¶16

2 On 11 June 2002, Hon'ble Mr.Justice F.I. Rebello (as he then was) allowed the Plaintiff – Appellant to withdraw the Summons for Judgment on account of a formal defect, on the request of the Counsel for the Appellant. The Summons for Judgment which was in a suit under Order 37 of the CPC was dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequently, a Chamber summons was taken out for amendment which was also allowed. A fresh Summons for Judgment was taken out in 2004 which was objected to on the ground that no liberty had been sought on the earlier occasion before the learned Single Judge to file a fresh Summons for Judgment. Praecipes for a clarification were filed in April and June 2005 before the Single Judge. However, it was only in 2009 that a Motion was taken

app (lodg) 703-2012

2/2

sat

out for seeking a clarification of the earlier order dated 11 June 2002 permitting withdrawal. There was an unexplained delay even in taking out the subsequent Motion. Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Motion.

¶21

3 Since the suit has now been transferred to the City Civil Court, we would leave it open to the Appellant to move the learned trial Judge for expeditious hearing of the suit and if such a request is made, the suit may be set down for early hearing.

¶22

4 The Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

(S.C. Gupte, J.)

Azad Finance and Trading Investment Ltd. v. Shri Satyanarayan Nanglia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Azad Finance and Trading Investment Ltd. v. Shri Satyanarayan Nanglia

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

Konkola Copper Mines (Plc) Vs Stewarts and Lloyds of India Ltd.

Louella Fernandes W/O Wilson Vs Rajan Giridharilal Chawla

Actal Vs India Infoline Ltd.

Morepen LAB0ORATORIES Ltd. Vs Rajesh N. Vora

Bombay Railway Engineering Co. Vs General Manager , C.R.

Usha Wd/O.Shamlal Arya (Lund) and Ors. Vs Roshni S. Dauda and Ors. and Punjab and Maharashtra Co-Op. Bank Ltd.