Allowed

Jmm Associates v. Vaishnavdevi Realty Ltd.

Bombay HC26 Jun 2013CA/267/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a company application regarding Company Petition No.789 of 2003, the Court allowed an amendment request to correct the respondent company's name by adding 'PVT.' to rectify a clerical error, noting the respondent's prior acknowledgment of the correct title.

What did the court decide?

Amendment to correct the respondent company name allowed forthwith; advertisement for next date of hearing directed to be issued.

Jmm Associates Vs Vaishnavdevi Realty Ltd. — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

cal-307.13.doc

¶2

ppn 1

¶3

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

¶4

COMPANY APPLICATION (L) NO.307 OF 2013 IN

¶5

COMPANY PETITION NO.789 OF 2003

¶6

M/s. JMM Associates

¶7

.. Applicant (Original Petitioner)

¶8

M/s. JMM Associates .. Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

M/s. VAISHNAVDEVI REALTY PVT. LTD. .. Respondent

¶11

Ms. Deepti B. Mistry i/by M/s. Vaibhav Mistry & Associates for the applicant/petitioner.

¶12

Mr. P.N. Singh i/by M/s. Vyas & Bhalwal for the respondent.

¶13

CORAM : N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 26 JUNE 2013

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

. This is an application taken out by the original petitioner in company petition No.789 of 2003 seeking amendment in terms of the schedule annexed to the application. The applicant seeks to correct the name of the respondent -company from “M/s. VAISHNAVDEVI REALTY LTD.” to “M/s. VAISHNAVDEVI REALTY PVT. LTD.”. Thus the applicant seeks to add the word “PVT.” to the description of the respondent-company.

¶16

The applicant had taken out the application no.389 of 2012 for restoration of the company petition no.789 of 2003 which was dismissed for non compliance of the directions given on 3 August 2010. By order dated 26 April 2013, the application was allowed and the

¶17

cal-307.13.doc

¶18

ppn 2

¶19

petition was restored to file. The applicant/petitioner was directed to publish the date of hearing of the petition.

¶20

The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant/petitioner has prepared the advertisement, however it could not be published in view of the fact that the name of the respondentcompany was erroneously mentioned as “M/s. VAISHNAVDEVI REALTY LTD.” in the main petition. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the amendment should not be permitted as it amounts to filing a new petition.

¶21

Company application no.389 of 2012 upon which the original petition was restored has described the respondent-company as “M/s. VAISHNAVDEVI REALTY PVT. LTD.”. It is to be noted that in the appearance filed in the Company petition no.789 of 2003, the respondent itself has described the name of the company as “M/s. VAISHNAVDEVI REALTY PVT. LTD.”. Thus omission of the word “PVT.” from the title of the respondent is a pure clerical error.

¶22

The petition is already directed to be restored after hearing both the sides. Once the respondent-company itself has acknowledged that the correct name of the respondent-company in company petition no.789 of 2003 as “M/s. VAISHNAVDEVI REALTY PVT. LTD.”, the applicant will have to be permitted to amend the description of the respondent-company as sought for.

¶23

The company application is accordingly allowed in terms

¶24

cal-307.13.doc

¶25

ppn 3

¶26

of prayer clause (a). Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Thereupon, the advertisement as directed by the order dated 26 April 2013 in Company application no.389 of 2012 be issued by the Petitioner, of the next date of hearing.

¶27

Stand over to 8 August 2013.

¶28

N.M. JAMDAR, J.

Jmm Associates v. Vaishnavdevi Realty Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jmm Associates v. Vaishnavdevi Realty Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Eastern Software Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Dewanchand Ramsaran Industries - U63040MH1975PTC018267

Mehernosh Keki Dumasia Vs Sherry Mehernosh Dumasia

Pandharinath Bhikaji Telge Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

B.v.Satya Prasad and 6 Ors. Vs the Official Liquidator, High Court of Bombay of Navinon Ltd., I

Phiroze Karaka and Co. Vs Kamath Hotels (India) Limited - L55101MH1986PLC039307

Shri. Ashok Murlidhar Kore and Ors. Vs the Saraswat Co-Op. Bank Ltd.