Allowed

Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. Kantilal C. Kothari and Ors. . and Pls Technologies Private Limited (Applicant)

Bombay HC23 Sept 2016CHS/15/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a chamber summons to join heirs of a deceased defendant and a purported transferee. It set aside the abatement of the suit, directed the impleadment of parties, and dismissed a concurrent chamber summons as infructuous without deciding on the deceased's title.

What did the court decide?

Abatement set aside; Plaintiffs directed to implead heirs of Defendant 15 and PLS Technologies as parties. Inquiry into succession deferred.

Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs Kantilal C. Kothari and… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

944-CHS15-16+.DOC

¶2

SHEPHALI

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 15 OF 2016

¶4

IN

¶5

SUIT NO. 2467 OF 2002

¶6

Larsen & Toubro Limited…Plaintiffs
Versus
Kantilal C. Kothari & Others…Defendants
And
PLS Technologies Private Limited...Applicant

¶7

WITH

¶8

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 638 OF 2014

¶9

Mr. Chetan Kapadia, with Mr. Sunil Tilokchandani & Mr.
Bharatkumar M. Jain, i/b M/s. Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co.,
for the Plaintiffs.

¶10

Mr. Pramod Kumar Vora, i/b M/s. Pramodkumar & Co., for
Defendants Nos. 1 to 5, 13 and 14.
Ms. D.G. Wanjara, for Defendants Nos. 9 to 11 and 12.
Mr. J.P. Sen, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Aditi Chauhan, i/b Suneet
Tyagi, for the proposed Defendants Nos. 15A to 15D.
Ms. S.I. Joshi, i/b S.I. Joshi & Co., for the Proposed Defendant &
Applicant in Chamber Summons No. 15 of 2016.

¶11

CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:23rd September 2016

¶12

PC:-

¶13

1. Chamber Summons No. 638 of 2014 is not on board. Mentioned. By consent, taken on board and heard.

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

23rd September 2016

¶16

944-CHS15-16+.DOC

¶17

2.There are two Chamber Summonses. Chamber Summons
No. 638 of 2014 is filed by the purported transferee of the deceased
15th Defendant’s interest in part of the property that is the subject
matter of this Suit for administration and accounts. There is no
dispute that the Applicant in Chamber Summons No. 15 of 2016
does claim through, and only through, Defendant No. 15. Defendant
No. 15 died on 2nd March 2012. He was survived by his widow, two
sons and a married daughter. Thus, there are in law and as
contemplated under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, four persons
and an entity who could fit within the definition of ‘legal
representatives’ within the meaning of Order 22 Rule 3 read with
Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This being the
case, I see no reason why the purported transferee, PLS
Technologies Private Limited, the Applicant in Chamber Summons
No. 15 of 2016 should not be joined as a party-Defendant to the Suit.

¶18

3.Chamber Summons No. 638 of 2014 is filed by the Plaintiffs.
It seeks that an enquiry be held to decide which of the legal
representatives of the 15th Defendant be joined (viz., PLS
Technologies, the widow and the three children) and, depending on
the result of this enquiry, for leave to amend. I will mould that relief
and allow the Plaintiffs to join all the legal representatives, i.e., to
join the heirs of Defendant No. 15 and the so-called successor in
title, PLS Technologies Private Limited. It is therefore not
necessary to actually allow both the Chamber Summonses. It is
sufficient to allow the Plaintiffs’ Chamber Summons in these terms.

¶19

4. There is an opposition to this Chamber Summons from Defendant No. 8, who claims that the 15th Defendant had no

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

23rd September 2016

¶22

944-CHS15-16+.DOC

¶23

interest in the property in question. That is surely a matter for
determination at a later stage when the respective shares are
decided. Paragraph 2 of the Plaint makes it clear that the 15th
Defendant has been described by the Plaintiffs as an erstwhile co-
owner with a 7% undivided share, right, title and interest. He is said
to have conveyed to this 7% interest to the Plaintiffs.

¶24

5.Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and 8 to 14 have filed Written
Statements to the Counter-claim. To the Suit, the 15th Defendant
was joined as a party-Defendant and, in my view, correctly.

¶25

6.All contentions of the contesting Defendants are expressly
kept open. This is adequate protection. No rights are decided by
virtue of allowing this Chamber Summons. On the other hand, if the
Chamber Summons is refused, the entire Suit might be prejudiced
for non-joinder of necessary parties although both the Plaintiffs and
the so-called transferee have attempted to have themselves
impleaded.

¶26

7.As to the submission that there is no prayer to set aside an
abatement as against the 15th Defendant, it is well settled that the
formality of making such a prayer is not an impediment to the Court
granting it. In this view of the matter, the abatement of the Suit as
against the 15th Defendant is set aside.

¶27

8.The Plaintiffs are directed to implead the four heirs of
Defendant No. 15 (his widow, Chandra Amar Munot; his sons Anuj
Amar Munot and Ajay Amar Munot, and his married daughter,

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

23rd September 2016

¶30

944-CHS15-16+.DOC

¶31

Riddhi Tushar Singhvi) as also the so-called successor in title PLS
Technologies Private Limited as Defendants to the Suit. It is
clarified that the enquiry sought in the Chamber Summons is
dispensed with at this stage. An enquiry in that nature, i.e., into
whose hands the property in question validly passed, will be made at
the final determination of the Suit.

¶32

9.In this view of the matter, Chamber Summons No. 15 of 2016
is infructuous. All rights and contentions of the contesting
Defendants are expressly kept open, including as to whether the
original 15th Defendant had any share, right, title and interest in the
property in question or could have validly conveyed the title or any
part of that property.

¶33

10.Amendment to be carried out on or before 14th October 2016.
A copy of the amended Plaint to be served on the Advocates for the
contesting Defendants on or before 21st October 2016. Additional
Written Statements, if any, to be filed and served on or before 2nd
December 2016. Both Chamber Summonses are disposed
accordingly in these terms with no order as to costs.

¶34

11. List the Suit for framing issues on 16th December 2016.

¶35

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶36

Page 4 of 4
23rd September 2016

Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. Kantilal C. Kothari and Ors. . and Pls Technologies Private Limited (Applicant)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. Kantilal C. Kothari and Ors. . and Pls Technologies Private Limited (Applicant)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashtriya Metal Industries Ltd. Vs Rashtriya Metal Industries

Rashtriya Metal Industries Ltd. Vs Rashtriya Metal Industries

Wanbury Limited Vs Venberry Health Care Pvt. Ltd.

Bertil Benedict Sequeira Vs Bertram Walter Sequeira and 3 Ors.

Dhyaana Rajiv Samani Vs Satvik Rajiv Samani and 8 Ors.

Chetan Devendra Tolia Vs Devendra Mohanlal Tolia Alias Devendra M. Tolia (Deceased)