This court dismissed a Notice of Motion filed by Biochem Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. The court held that the application was three years old and cited repeated adjournment requests by the plaintiffs as evidence of lack of interest in pursuing the matter.
The Notice of Motion was dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
225-NMS1588-13.DOC
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1588 OF 2013
IN
SUIT NO. 839 OF 2013
Biochem Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.…Plaintiffs
Versus
Gracious Pharmaceuticals…Defendants
Mr. Dhiraj Chavan, i/b Nayan Rawal, for the Plaintiffs.
Mr. Ashutosh Kane, a/w Ms. Akshata Kamath, i/b M/s. W. S. Kane
& Co., for the the Defendants.
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 30th March 2016
PC:-
1.The Motion is listed at Sr. No. 225 on the weekly board. This
weekly board was notified on 21st March 2016 and possibly even a
few days earlier. For these entire week, reserved specially for
Intellectual Property matters, there is no daily board, and the
Weekly Board is notified to commence after the short
Supplementary Board. Since Monday, 28th March 2016, the
Weekly Board has been taken up. Further, the notice accompanying
the notification of the Weekly Board clearly stated that these final
hearing matters will be taken up serially and that no adjournments
1 of 2
225-NMS1588-13.DOC
would be granted. A general notice also states that no adjournments
will be granted on the ground of non-availability of the counsel.
2.An application is made on behalf of the Plaintiffs today that
they are in the process of appointing a new counsel. That is no
ground. The Plaintiffs have had at least ten days to set their house
in order. I see no reason whatsoever to grant the Plaintiffs any such
indulgence in a Motion that is already three years old.
3.There appears to be no ad-interim order. Indeed, as Mr.
Kane for the Defendants points out, it does not seen that any ad-
interim relief was ever sought. Mr. Kane also points out that the
Plaintiff has repeatedly sought adjournments on one ground or the
other. On 23rd November 2011, the Motion was adjourned by
consent. However, it was previously adjourned, and repeatedly, at
the instance of the Plaintiffs, including on 17th August 2015 and
again on 13th January 2016. Evidently the Plaintiffs have no real
interest in pursuing this Motion.
4.Mr. Chavan for the Plaintiffs is unable to proceed, though
given the opportunity to do so.
5.The Notice of Motion is dismissed. There will be no order as
to costs.
(G. S. PATEL, J.)
2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application for a Motion filed three years ago should be allowed consideration when the applicant seeks to appoint new counsel.
Biochem Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.
Gracious Pharmaceuticals
G. S. PATEL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court