The suit was dismissed because the plaintiffs were absent from the hearing on the listed date, and their advocate had no instructions to proceed with the matter.
Suit dismissed due to non-appearance of plaintiffs and lack of instructions to their counsel.
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.
4-S296-1998.DOC
Vishal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 296 OF 1998
Central Bank of India …Plaintiffs
Versus
Mazda Industries & Leasing Ltd....Defendants
...Defendants
Mr. Zeeshan Farooqui i/b.Gagrats for the Plaintiffs.
Mr. Anurag Gokhale for Official Liquidator.
CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:APRIL 16, 2014
PC:-
1.Learned advocate for the plaintiffs states that he has been
instructed to apply for discharge. He has no instructions.
2.The suit is of 1998. The plaintiff is a nationalized bank. The
defendant-company is in liquidation. The liquidator has been
joined, by an amendment allowed on 3rd July 2001, but even 13
years later has not been served. In other words, on the date when
the suit is listed, the plaintiffs are absent and their advocates have
no instructions to enable them to proceed the matter.
3. The suit is dismissed.
(G. S. PATEL, J.)
1 of 1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a suit can proceed when the plaintiff is absent and their advocate has no instructions.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mazda Industries & Leasing Ltd.
G. S. Patel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court