Appeal against an order allowing a notice of motion under Section 94 CPC for presentation of documents. No reply was filed to the motion.
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.
NMA840-12.7
1/1
PNP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.840 OF 2013 IN APPEAL (LODG.) NO.253 OF 2013 IN NOTICE OF MOTION (LODG.) NO.646 OF 2013 IN
SUIT NO.2630 OF 2005
Hill Son and Dinshaw (Pvt.) Ltd.
..Appellant.
versus
The Board of Trustee of the Port of Mumbai
..Respondent.
Mr. Omkar Bade with Mr. Akshay Diamondwala i/b Jayakar and Partners for the Appellant.
Mr. U.J. Makhija i/b Motiwalla & Co. for the Respondent.
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, AND S.C.GUPTE, JJ.
12 July 2013.
P.C. :
There is a delay of sixteen days in filing the Appeal which has been satisfactorily explained. No reply has been filed to the Motion. Hence, the Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
(Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J.)
(S.C. Gupte, J.)
Hill Son and Dinshaw (Pvt.) Ltd.
The Board of Trustee of the Port of Mumbai
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud
S.C. Gupte
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
