Allowed

Haria Exports Ltd. v. Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Jul 2015CHS/152/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay recalled and restored a dismissed Chamber Summons allowing the plaintiff to amend the cause title to reflect the defendant's name change from Bank of Tokyo, Mitsubishi to Bank of Tokyo UFG Ltd., based on facts alleged and defendant's consent.

What did the court decide?

Chamber Summons No 152 of 2010 restored; plaint and pleadings to be amended to reflect the change in defendant's name within one week.

Haria Exports Ltd. Vs Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2015)

7-nm-3119-2011

rrp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISIDCTION

¶6

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3119 OF 2011 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO 152 OF 2010 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 6969 OF 1999

¶7

Haria Export Ltd. . : Plaintiffs versus Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi and others. : Defendants.

¶8

Mr. Avinash D. Kango for plaintiff. Mr. Roop M. Vasudeo for Defendant.

¶9

CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM, J.

¶10

DATE : 29^th July, 2015.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

Though this Notice of Motion is not listed today, the Counsel for the Plaintiff and the defendant requested that the same may be taken up for hearing and disposal.

¶13

This Notice of Motion is to recall an order dated 27^th September, 2011 dismissing the Chamber Summons for default. Restore the Chamber summons and pass appropriate orders in this Chamber Summons.

7-nm-3119-2011

rrp

The Chamber summons bearing No 152 of 2010 that came to be dismissed for default was taken out by the plaintiff for leave to amend cause title as per schedule annexed thereto to reflect the change in the name of Defendant No.1 from Bank of Tokyo, Mitbushi Limited to Bank of Tokyo UFG Ltd. The Counsel for the Defendant No.1 states that there has in fact been change of name of Defendant No.1. A copy of the notification issued by Reserve Bank of India on 26^th December 2015 is also annexed to the affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons.

¶18

For reasons mentioned in the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion and in view of the fact that Counsel for Defendant No 1 has no objection, the Notice of motion allowed in terms of Prayer Clause (a).

¶19

Chamber summons bearing No 152 of 2010 is restored

¶20

to file.

¶21

Chamber Summons No 152 of 2010

¶22

Counsel for plaintiff and defendant requested that this Chamber Summons be also heard and disposed.

¶23

In view of what is stated above and in view of no objection given by counsel for defendant No 1 and reasons mentioned in affidavit in support of the Chamber summons, the Chamber Summons is allowed in terms of Prayer Clause (a). The

7-nm-3119-2011

rrp

plaint to be amended only to reflect Clause (1) mentioned in schedule (1) annexed to the Chamber Summons. Amendment to be carried out to the plaint, memorandum of address, list of documents and written statement and a copy of the amended cause title of the plaint to be served upon the advocate for defendant No.1 within one week from today. Re-verification is dispensed.

Haria Exports Ltd. v. Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haria Exports Ltd. v. Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dashrathlal Manecklal Patel and 3 Ors. Vs Alpesh Balubhai Vekaria

Gul Murlidhar Kalwani Vs Amin Noorali Rangara and Anr.

Bhaverdevi Agarwal Vs Jatin Khandawala

Haria Exports Ltd. Vs Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ltd. and Ors.

G. Krishnamurthy and 3 Ors. Vs R.K. Garg and LIC Nomura Mutual Fund Trustee Company Pvt. Ltd. (Applicant)

Santoshkumar K. Gupta Vs Sumer Corporation