Dismissed

Ramprakash Balkishan Chandak v. Shyam Balkishan Chandak and 6 Ors.

Bombay HC24 Feb 2016APP/219/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant, appearing in person, challenged an order dismissing his suit based on failure to obtain CLV. The Division Bench referred to Quadricon case but affirmed the Single Judge's view that distinction between lodging and admitting a suit matters if leave is obtained before admission. Appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed, interim relief vacated.

Ramprakash Balkishan Chandak Vs Shyam… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

902-appl.487.2015

1/3

nsc.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

APPEAL (L) NO.487 OF 2015 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1060 OF 2012 IN SUIT NO.1423 OF 2011

¶6

Ramprakash Balkishan Chandak ...Appellant Versus Shyam Balkishan Chandak and Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr.Ramprakash Balkishan Chandak, Appellant in person.

¶8

Mr.P.M.Shah a/w M.K.Tanna, for the Respondent No.1

¶9

CORAM : V. M. KANADE & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 24^th FEBRUARY, 2016

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Heard the appellant who is appearing in person.

¶13

The appellant is aggrieved by order dated 11^th October, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge on the Notice of Motion taken out by

¶14

the respondent no.1/plaintiff seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground

¶15

902-appl.487.2015

¶16

2/3

¶17

that leave under Clause-XII of Letters Patent was not taken before filing of the Suit on 20^th September, 2010.

¶18

We have heard the appellant who is appearing in person. He has relied on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Quadricon Private Limited vs Shri Bajrang Alloys Limited, delivered on 17^th March, 2009 in Appeal No.215 of 2008. The learned Single Judge after going through the same came to a conclusion that the ratio of the judgment in the case of Quadricon Private Limited (Supra) is not applicable to the present case.

¶19

The learned Single Judge in our view has rightly held that a distinction will have to be made between lodgment of a suit and admission of the suit and only if it is shown that leave is obtained after the suit was admitted then in such a case leave could not have been obtained after the admission of the suit.

¶20

In the present case, the learned Single Judge has observed that though the suit was lodged on 20^th December, 2010, it was admitted on 21^st

¶21

902-appl.487.2015

¶22

3/3

¶23

June, 2011. He had observed that leave under Clause-XII of the Letters

¶24

Patent was obtained before this date.

¶25

We do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and consequently dismiss the appeal.

¶26

Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.

¶27

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶28

V.M. KANADE, J.

Ramprakash Balkishan Chandak v. Shyam Balkishan Chandak and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramprakash Balkishan Chandak v. Shyam Balkishan Chandak and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Relife and Welfare Society for the Blind Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Smt. Prabha P. Shenai Vs Official Liquidator

Vijaynath Moreshwar Dhuru Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Smt. Rani Yogeshy Chorghe Vs Mr. Yogesh Prakash Chorghe

Rajesh Suresh Chindrarkar and Anr. Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Oasis Shipping Private Limited Vs Pranav Agro Industries Limited