Allowed

Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. and Anr. v. Capstone Investmnet Company P.Ltd.

Bombay HC12 Aug 2013NMS/1076/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an undefended suit, the court allowed the State Bank of India applicant to file a written statement as a substitute for the original defendant, restoring the suit to general category within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to file written statement within four weeks; suit restoration order if not filed.

What the court decided

Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. and Anr. Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

nms-1076.13.doc

¶2

ppn 1

¶3

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

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1076 OF 2013 IN

¶5

SUIT NO.3041 OF 2002

¶6

State Bank of India .. Applicant (Orig.Deft. No.3)

¶7

In the matter of

¶8

Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. & Anr. .. Plaintiffs Vs. Capstone Investment Company Pvt Ltd. & Ors. .. Defendants

¶9

Mr. Mehul Shah i/by M/s. Intellect Legal for the plaintiffs. Mr. Onkar Chandurkar i/by M/s. Universal Legal for defendant no.1. Mr. Bhalchandra Palav a/w Mr. Anush Mathkar i/by M/s. Amarchand & Mangaldas for defendant no.2. Mr. S. S. Kumbhar i/by Mr. S.A. Bhagwat for the Official Liquidator.

¶10

CORAM : N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 12 AUGUST 2013

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

. The notice of motion is taken out for grant leave to defendant no.3 to file its written statement on record.

¶13

The suit which was originally filed by the plaintiffs was against the three defendants. The original defendant no.3 is State Bank of India Home Finance Limited. By order dated 4 February 2008 passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master, the suit was transferred to the category of “Undefended Suits.”

¶14

ppn 2 nms-1076.13.doc

¶15

The applicant–State Bank of India has taken out this notice of motion seeking recall of the order passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master and permitting it to file written statement. In the affidavit-in-support of notice of motion, it is stated that on 4 October 2004, the original defendant no.3-State Bank of India Home Finance Limited informed the plaintiff that by the Deed of Assignment dated 17 February 2004, the debts have been assigned to the State Bank of India. The original defendant no.3 informed to plaintiff no.1 to take appropriate steps to substitute the State Bank of India in its place. It is also stated that two letters were addressed in this regard on 23 May 2005 and 22 August 2011. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that in a suit filed in this Court between the parties, the State Bank of India has been brought on record by the plaintiffno.1 who was thus aware that the State Bank of India needs to be made partydefendant. The learned Counsel submitted that the plaintiff no.2 had filed chamber summons bearing no.918 of 2012 for impleading the applicant as plaintiff no.2 on record and chamber summons No.173 of 2012 was filed by the present applicant i.e. State Bank of India for impleading itself on record as defendant no.3 in place of original defendant no.3. The learned Counsel submitted that both the chamber summons were allowed by order dated 2 April 2013.The learned Counsel states that in view of this position and the fact that the State Bank of India-applicant has been brought on record only in the year 2013 inspite of repeatedly pointing out to the plaintiffs to carry out this change, an opportunity is given to the applicant to file written statement.

¶16

The learned Counsel for the plaintiff no.2 has filed a reply

¶17

ppn 3 nms-1076.13.doc

¶18

affidavit. The learned Counsel submitted that inspite of due notice, the original defendant no.3-State Bank of India Home Finance Limited did not file its written statement. The learned Counsel submitted that the applicant/defendant no.3 is not necessary or affected party and there cannot be any assignment in favour of present applicant/ defendant no.3.

¶19

Correspondence annexed to the notice of motion shows that the request was made by original defendant no.3 to the plaintiffs for bringing the applicant on record. In the suit proceedings the applicant has been brought on record. As far as the contention raised by the plaintiff no.2 as regards legality of the assignment is concerned, it pertains to the merits of the dispute between the parties. Once it is placed on record, the original defendant no.3 had made correspondence with plaintiff no.1 as regards bringing the present applicant on record and the present applicant was brought on record only on 2 April 2013,the applicant needs be given an opportunity to file written statement. Accordingly, the notice of motion is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶20

The written statement is directed to be filed within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, the order passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master transferring the suit to the category of “Undefended Suits” will stand restored. Upon filing of written statement, the office will take steps to transfer the suit to the appropriate category.

¶21

N.M. JAMDAR, J.

Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. and Anr. v. Capstone Investmnet Company P.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. and Anr. v. Capstone Investmnet Company P.Ltd.

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

Darshan Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. Vs Aqua Specialized Transport Pvt. Ltd.

Vitex Trading and Investment Private Limited Vs -----

M/S Darshan Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Canaan Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

Jyoti Structures Ltd. Vs Divya Enterprises Ltd.

Ferzeen Hanosh Udwadia Vs Hanosh Sam Udwadia

Vilasrao Deshmukh Vs Atul Bhatkhalkar