Partly allowed

M/S Neven Textile Engineers v. M/S v.K.S.Projects Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC10 Dec 2015NMS/1936/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Bombay order condones a 16-day delay by the applicant defendant in filing an Affidavit-in-Reply to a Summons for Judgment. The court held that the litigant should not suffer due to its advocate's mistake in failing to file required documents earlier.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing leave to defend is condoned; Applicant/Defendant No. 2 to file Affidavit-in-Reply by 18.12.2015; Notice of Motion disposed of.

M/S Neven Textile Engineers Vs M/S… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

906 nms 1936-15=.doc

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION.

¶3

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1936 OF 2015 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 76 OF 2015

¶4

Office Notes, Office Court’s or Judge’s orders Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, court’s orders or directions and Prothonotary’s orders

¶5

Mr. Sandip Kumar for applicant/ defendant nos. 1, 2 and 4.

¶6

Mr. Mukesh Mishra i/b Haresh Lulia for the respondent /Plaintiff.

¶7

CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATED : 10/12/2015.

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶10

2 This motion is preferred by defendant no.2 to

¶11

allow them to file their Affidavit-in-Reply in Summons for Judgment no. 26 of 2015.

¶12

3 The learned counsel for the

¶13

applicant/defendant submits that in the present proceeding, earlier they appointed Adv. Mr. Lalit B. Nair to take appropriate steps. The earlier Advocate

¶14

assured the applicant/defendant that he would prepare and file written statement within time. As the earlier Advocate failed to do so, they appointed the present Advocate. At that time, the present

1/3

Sneha Chavan

906 nms 1936-15=.doc

Advocate informed the defendants that instead of written statement, they have to first file Affidavit-inReply to the Summons for Judgment. Hence, the delay in filing their Affidavit-in-Reply to leave to defend the summary suit. He submits that because of the mistake on the part of the Advocate, the litigant should not suffer.

¶19

4 On the other hand, the learned Counsel Mr. Mukesh Mishra appearing on behalf of plaintiff vehemently opposed the present Notice of Motion. He submits that the applicant/defendant failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of 16 days delay in filing leave to defend. They filed their Affidavit-in-Reply dated 07.12.2015.

¶20

5 The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that as the applicant/defendant failed to show sufficient cause for codonation of 16 days delay, there is no question of allowing the present Notice of Motion.

¶21

6 I heard both the sides at length. It is to be noted that in the present proceeding, earlier the applicant defendant appointed Adv. Mr. Lalit B. Nair who assured the defendant that he will take appropriate steps for filing the leave to defend the suit as well as the written statement. As he failed to do so, they appointed the present Advocate.

¶22

7 Considering the fact that because of mistake

2/3

Sneha Chavan

906 nms 1936-15=.doc

on the part of Advocate, the litigant should not suffer and the reasons disclosed by the applicant in their affidavit-in-support of Notice of Motion, I am satisfied that applicant has made out case for allowing this Notice of Motion.

¶27

8 Hence, following order.

¶28

a) Delay in filing leave to defend i.e. affidavit-in-reply of Summons for Judgment no. 26 of 2015 is condoned.

¶29

b) Applicant/defendant No.2 to file their Affidavit-in-Reply in Summons for Judgment no. 26 of 2015 on or before 18.12.2015 and serve copy on other side.

¶30

c) Notice of Motion stands disposed of accordingly.

¶31

(K.K.TATED, J.)

¶32

3/3

¶33

Sneha Chavan

M/S Neven Textile Engineers v. M/S v.K.S.Projects Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Neven Textile Engineers v. M/S v.K.S.Projects Ltd. and 3 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

H. K. Industries Vs Meetas Garments Pvt. Ltd. and Deepak B. Bathija

Ravindra P Angara Vs Ind-Swift Laboratories Limited

Baccarose Perfumes and Beauty Products Pvt.Ltd. Vs Labhsubh Securities International Ltd.

M/S Polycab Wires Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Lanco Infratech Limited

Indiacom Ltd. Vs M/S Eltec Corporation a Firm and 2 Ors.

M/S Neven Textile Engineers Vs M/S v.K.S.Projects Ltd. and 3 Ors.