COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
The civil suit was dismissed as withdrawn; the Notice of Motion was disposed of as infructuous and court fee was refunded.
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.
903-COMSL35-16.DOC
ATUL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 35 OF 2016
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 35 OF 2016
Bardahl Manufacturing Corporation…Plaintiffs
Versus
HOEC Bardahl India Limited (HBIL) & Another…Defendants
Mr. Prakash Shah, with Mr. Durgaprasad Poojari, i/b Prompt Legal,
for the Plaintiffs.
Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, with Mrs. Sheetal Shah, i/b M/s. Mehta &
Girdharlal, for the Defendants.
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 18th November 2016
PC:-
1.Mr. Shah moves a draft amendment. It is taken on record and
marked “X” for identification. Leave to amend, without need of
reverification. Amendment to be carried out on or before 25th
November 2016.
2.The ad-interim order dated 4th July 2016 noting statements
made by Mr. Jagtiani on instructions from the Defendants is
confirmed and will operate hereafter against the Defendants.
Page 1 of 2
18th November 2016
903-COMSL35-16.DOC
3.Mr. Jagtiani, on instructions, also makes a statement as
regards the unsold inventory that the Defendants have removed all
the labels and marks of the Plaintiff affixed by them on this
inventory. The Defendants are at liberty to dispose of this inventory
in such manner as they deem fit.
4. It is also noted that the name of the Joint Venture company has been changed to Hindage Oilfield Services Limited and no longer uses the name of the Plaintiff company, Bardahl.
5.On these statements being noted and accepted, Mr. Shah for
the Plaintiff seeks leave to withdraw the Suit. The Suit is dismissed
as withdrawn. It is clarified that there has been no examination on
the rival merits in the Suit itself.
6. Refund of court fee in accordance with the Rules.
7. In view of this, the Notice of Motion does not survive and is disposed of as infructuous.
8. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
(G. S. PATEL, J.)
Page 2 of 2
18th November 2016
G. S. Patel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court