Disposed

Sebastian Andrade v. Expedia Inc. and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jul 2016NMS/843/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed objections in a Notice of Motion seeking restoration of a previous motion. It ordered the plaintiff's counsel to pay Rs. 10,000 to the law library, restored the motion along with an interim order, and listed it for final disposal.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of Notice of Motion (L) No. 2875 of 2015 along with ad-interim order dated 30.10.2015, subject to payment of Rs. 10,000 to the law library.

Sebastian Andrade Vs Expedia Inc. and 3 Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

904-NMS843-16.DOC

¶2

ATUL

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 843 OF 2016

¶4

IN

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 2875 OF 2015 IN

¶6

SUIT NO. 1140 OF 2015

¶7

Sebastian Andrade
Versus
Expedia Inc & 3 Others

¶8

…Plaintiff

¶9

…Defendants

¶10

Mr. Deepak A. Lad, for the Plaintiff.
Ms. Kathleen Lobo, with Ms. Aastha Arora, i/b Khaitan & Co., for
Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4.

¶11

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 12th July 2016

¶12

PC:-

¶13

1.The Plaintiff’s Advocate’s office has been most remiss. After
having obtained an ad-interim order on 30th October 2015, Mr.
Lad’s office allowed the principal Notice of Motion to be dismissed
for non-removal of office objections. That objection was utterly
trivial. I cannot understand why Mr. Lad’s staff could not find the
time between October 2015 and February 2016 to comply with so
minor a matter.

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

12h July 2016

¶16

904-NMS843-16.DOC

¶17

2.The present Notice of Motion by the Plaintiff seeks
restoration of Notice of Motion (L) No. 2875 of 2015 and revival of
the ad-interim order dated 30th October 2015. In fairness to the
Plaintiff, that must follow. I do not see why, however, this conduct
by an advocate’s office should be excused. This seems to happen
repeatedly in this Court. It must stop.

¶18

3.Mr. Lad in fairness accepts responsibility for the lapse. He
states that he will personally pay costs as condition precedent
quantified at Rs. 10,000/- to the Bombay High Court Law Library
These costs will be paid within one week from today.

¶19

4.On those costs being paid, the Notice of Motion (L) No. 2875
of 2015 to stand restore to file along with ad-interim order dated
30th October 2015.

¶20

5.Notice of Motion (L) No. 2875 of 2015 is otherwise ready for
hearing and final disposal. List that Notice of Motion on the weekly
board of 8th August 2016.

¶21

6.With these observations and directions, the Notice of Motion
is disposed of with no order as to costs.

¶22

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶23

Page 2 of 2
12h July 2016

Sebastian Andrade v. Expedia Inc. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sebastian Andrade v. Expedia Inc. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Natasha Amit Sawant Vs Mr. Shantaram Gangaram Shirke (Deceased)

Sony Kabushiki Kaisha Vs Mr.Rasik K.Gada

Maganlal Savani andAND Anr. Vs Smt. Lakshmi P. Chakravorthy and 4 Ors.

Kamlesh Chhotalal Parekh and Kiran Kamlesh Parekh Vs Smita Yogesh Parekh and Ors.

Ctp Environement S.A.S Vs Sentro Technologies Limited and Anr. and Domains by Proxy,Llc

Uttamchand Devichand Shah Vs Bansi Jaisingh and Anr.