In a notice of motion, the court, noting the plaintiff's absence, dismissed the application and recorded the rejection of the plaint under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules.
Notice of Motion No.3154 of 2009 stood dismissed.
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.
30.NMS-3154-2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3154 OF 2009 IN SUIT (LODG.) NO.1266 OF 2009
Mangilal Chunilal Parmar ….Plaintiff V/s. F.E. Dinshaw Trust & Ors. ....Defendants ----
None for the plaintiff. Mr. Arvind Aswani i/b. Mr. J.G. Reddy for defendant no.4. Mr. M.P. Vora i/b. M/s. Pramodkumar & Co. for defendant no.5.
CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J DATE : 12th October, 2015
P.C.:-
Nobody is present for the plaintiff. The counsels for the defendant no.4 and defendant no.5 who are present state that even ad-interim order was not pressed for or granted. The notice of motion stands dismissed. The counsel for defendant no.5 tenders a print out of the case details published in the high court website where it shows that the plaint has been rejected under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules. The same is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification.
(K.R.SHRIRAM,J)
Gauri Gaekwad
30.NMS-3154-2009
2
CERTIFICATE
Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed Judgment/Order.
Gauri Gaekwad
1 provisions across 1 enactments
F.E. Dinshaw Trust
K.R.Shriram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
