Allowed

Walchandnagar Industries Limited, through G. S. Agrawal v. Indraprastha Developers, through Partner, Ujwala Mahendra Shah and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Apr 2013CAW/344/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Application filed to amend a Writ Petition seeking to include facts and legal grounds regarding a suit. The court allowed the amendment, set a timeline for service, and listed the petition for admission after the Summer Vacation.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Application to amend the Writ Petition was allowed; amended petition to be filed and served within two weeks.

Walchandnagar Industries Limited, through G… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

caw-344.13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.344 OF 2013 IN WRIT PETITION NO.722 OF 2013

¶4

Walchandnagar Industries Limited Through its Authorized Representative Mr. G S Agrawal : Petitioner. Versus Indraprastha Developers Through its partner Mrs.Ujwala Mahendra Shah and ors. : Respondents.

¶5

Mr. Shrihari Anney, Senior Advocate with Mr. S G Datar for the Applicant/Petitioner. Mr. G S Baj for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶6

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 24^th April 2013

¶7

P.C.

¶8

1 The above Civil Application has been filed for amendment of the Writ Petition in terms of the proposed amendments which have been mentioned in Para 3 thereof. The amendments proposed are in the synopsis so as to includes 4 dates which have been mentioned therein. The 4 dates are relating to the events which have taken place in the suit on the said dates. The Petitioner also seeks to incorporate Paragraphs 8A, 10A and add to the grounds which are already existing in the Writ Petition. In so far as Paragraphs 8A and 10A are concerned, they relate to some factual aspects relating to the suit in question and the legal submissions based thereon. In so far as the grounds are

1 of 3

lgc

caw-344.13

concerned, they are the legal submissions which are sought to be incorporated by the Petitioner in support of their contention that the amendments to the plaint by the impugned order could not have been allowed.

¶13

2 The above Civil Application has been opposed to on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. A contention is sought to be raised that the Petitioner desire this Court to go into the evidence which has been recorded prior to the suit being amended. The learned counsel would contend that allowing the amendment application would prejudice the case of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. the original Plaintiffs.

¶14

3 It is required to be noted that the above Writ Petition is at the preadmission stage and as indicated above the amendments seek to bring some factual aspects on record which are relating to the suit in question and the legal submissions which the Petitioner seeks to raise before this Court whilst challenging the impugned order. In my view, therefore, the said amendment application i.e. the above Civil Application No.344 of 2013 is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The amendment in the above Writ Petition to be carried out within two weeks from date and the copy of the amended Petition to be served on the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. on their advocate Shri Baj within a period of two weeks thereafter. It would be open for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to file their additional affidavit dealing with the

2 of 3

lgc

caw-344.13

amendments. The same to be done within two weeks of the amended Petition being served on them. List the above Petition for admission after the ensuing Summer Vacation on 11/6/2013. The order of status quo which is continued and which is operating till today to continue till the next date. The above Civil Application is accordingly disposed of.

¶19

[R.M.SAVANT, J]

¶20

3 of 3

¶21

lgc

Walchandnagar Industries Limited, through G. S. Agrawal v. Indraprastha Developers, through Partner, Ujwala Mahendra Shah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Walchandnagar Industries Limited, through G. S. Agrawal v. Indraprastha Developers, through Partner, Ujwala Mahendra Shah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Ganpati Bhairu Aaragade (Decd) Heirs, Shri. Rama Ganpati Aaragade Vs Shri. Bhiva Dadu Shetake and Ors.

Bharat Chaturbhuj Naik Vs Ranoji Chaturbhuj Naik

Smt. Muktabai Vasant Sonavane and Ors. Vs Smt. Hirabai Maruti Sonavane and Ors.

Kisan Tatyaso Ghadage and Anr. Vs Balasaheb Sambhajirao Ingale and Ors.

Shri. Daji Ramji Patil, through Constituted Attorney, Kamlakar Baliram Patil Vs Versatile Developers Pvt. Ltd., through Director, Vijaykumar Ranch and Ors.

Rebecca Girish Pawar Vs Girish Sunderlal Pawar