Dismissed
O.W. Bunker Middle East Dmcc v. M.T. Pratibha Bheema and Anr.
Bombay HCADMS/14/2013
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
IN THE HIGH COURT
What the court decided
AI extract
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.
916-ADMS-14-2013
Nitin
1 / 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ADMIRALTY AND VICE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION
ADMIRALTY SUIT NO. 14 OF 2013
O.W. Bunker Middle East DMCC … Plaintiff
Versus
m.t. Pratibha Bheema … Defendant
Ms. S. Murarka i/b. Crawford Bayley and Company for the Plaintiff. Ms. Aditi Pawar a/w. Ms. P. Patnaik i/b. Little and Company for Defendant No. 2.
Mr. S. Ramakantha, OL, present.
CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATED : 20TH JULY, 2015
P.C.:
order :
“1. The learned Advocate for the Plaintiff states that the Advocates for the Plaintiff were informed in November 2014 that the entire group of the Plaintiff is under reconstruction. She has informed the Court that despite requests, no instructions are coming forward from the Plaintiff. In view thereof, the Advocates for the Plaintiff seeks discharge. The Advocates for the Plaintiff are therefore, discharged
2 / 2 916-ADMS-14-2013
Nitin
from appearing in the above Suit. The said
Advocate shall forward a copy of this order to the Plaintiff. It is clarified that if the Plaintiff fails to appear before this Court by themselves or through their representative/s/Advocate, the Court shall be constrained to dismiss the above Suit. Place the above Suit on 6th July, 2015, first on board”.
2. The learned Advocate appearing for the Plaintiff on
instructions seeks two weeks time on the ground that the restructuring agency - ING Vysya Bank shall within a period of two weeks decide whether they will proceed with the above Suit or withdraw the same. In view
thereof, stand over to 20th July, 2015, first on board.
3. It is clarified that no further time shall be
granted to the Plaintiff on the adjourned date”.
has not received any instructions from the Plaintiff or the restructuring agency and therefore she is unable to assist the Court in any manner. In view thereof, the Suit is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.)
S.J. Kathawalla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court