The suit was listed for directions. The plaintiffs and their advocates did not appear. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed the suit under Order IX Rule 3 CPC and vacated any interim relief.
Suit dismissed under Order IX Rule 3 CPC; interim relief vacated.
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.
2-S4638-1996.DOC
Vishal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.4638 OF 1996
Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd.
Versus
The Board of Trustees of The Port of Mumbai
and Anr.
...Plaintiffs
...Defendants
None for the Plaintiffs
Mr.Roshan Pinto i/b.M/s.Mulla and Mulla for the Defendants
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: APRIL 01, 2014.
PC:-
1.The 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 when a suit listed under the caption for directions is
called out, if none appears for the plaintiff/s, 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 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908. Interim / ad-interim relief, if any, granted earlier in any
interlocutory proceedings in this suit, shall stand vacated forthwith.
(G. S. PATEL, J.)
1 of 1
1 issue framed by the court
What is the consequence of the non-appearance of the plaintiffs when the suit is called for directions?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd.
The Board of Trustees of The Port of Mumbai
G. S. Patel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court