The High Court at Bombay dismissed a suit due to the absence of plaintiffs and counsel despite prior notice. The court vacated any interim relief granted earlier in the proceedings under Order IX Rule 8 CPC.
Dismissal of suit with vacation of any interim relief granted.
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.
25-S-2292-98.DOC
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 2292 of 1998
Morarjee Goculdas Spinning and Seaving Co. …Plaintiffs
Ltd.
Versus
Sree Kailash Sugars and Chemicals Limited.…Defendants
None for the Plaintiffs.
Mr. Ashish Rao, i/b M & M Legal Venture, for the Defendants.
CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:June 17, 2014
PC:-
1.A notice has been issued on the printed board, as also on the
High Court Website, to the effect that, when a suit listed,
irrespective of the caption under which it appears, if none appears
for the plaintiff/s when the matter is called out, the suit will be
dismissed.
2.The names of the plaintiffs and their Advocates are correctly
shown. None appears when the matter is called out. The suit is
dismissed under Order IX Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1 of 2
25-S-2292-98.DOC
1908. Interim / ad-interim relief, if any, granted earlier in any
interlocutory proceedings in this suit, shall stand vacated forthwith.
(G. S. PATEL, J.)
2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a suit should be dismissed for default when no plaintiff or advocate appears after notice.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Morarjee Goculdas Spinning and Seaving Co. Ltd.
Sree Kailash Sugars and Chemicals Limited
G.S. PATEL
J
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court