The suit filed by M/s. Electra India and others against State Bank of India was listed for directions. With no appearance by the plaintiffs and despite notice on the High Court Web, the suit was dismissed under Order IX Rule 3 CPC under these circumstances.
The suit was dismissed due to non-appearance of the plaintiffs.
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.
(8)SUIT-3597-95.doc
Tilak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO.3597 of 1995
M/s.Electra India & ors....Plaintiffs
Versus
State Bank of India & ors....Defendants
____________
None present.
Mr.O. Mohandas i/b M/s.Little & Co. for the defendants.
CORAM: G. S. PATEL, J.
DATED : FEBRUARY 20, 2014.
P.C.:
1The suit is listed for directions today. A notice has been
issued on the printed board, as also on the High Court Website, to
the effect that from 10th February 2014, when suits listed under the
caption of directions are called out, if none appears for the
plaintiff/s, the suit will be dismissed.
2The 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 3 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908.
3All interim or ad-interim reliefs, if any, to stand vacated
forthwith.
(G. S. PATEL, J.)
1 of 1
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Electra India & ors.
State Bank of India & ors.
G. S. PATEL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court