Allowed

Shree Ameya Co. Operattive Housing Society Ltd. v. Smt Laxmibai Ganpat Chogle and 16 Others

Bombay HC14 Mar 2017CHS/319/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an amendment application to Suit No. 839 of 2016 regarding Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, the court allowed substantial amendments to admit new facts known post-filing, subject to all defendant contentions remaining open.

What did the court decide?

Chamber Summons allowed; amendments to be carried out on or before 17th March 2017.

Shree Ameya Co. Operattive Housing Society… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

31-CHS319-17.DOC

¶2

ATUL

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 319 OF 2017

¶4

IN

¶5

SUIT NO. 839 OF 2016

¶6

WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 321 OF 2017
IN

¶7

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 187 OF 2017
IN
SUIT NO. 839 OF 2016

¶8

Shree Ameya Coop Hsg Soc Ltd
Versus
Smt Laxmibai Ganpat Chogle & Ors

¶9

…Plaintiffs

¶10

…Defendants

¶11

Ms Rajani Iyer, Senior Advocate, with Susheel Mahadeshwar, i/b
Ranjana Todankar, for the Plaintiffs/Applicants.

¶12

Mr Anil Baphana, i/b Dipti Shah, for the Defendants Nos. 1 to 13.
Mr Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate, a/w Niranjan Pandit, AS
Bhalekar, i/b AQ Motiwala Advocates, for Defendants Nos. 14 & 15.

¶13

CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:14th March 2017

¶14

PC:-

¶15

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 319 OF 2017:

¶16

1.This is the Plaintiff’s Chamber Summons for amendment. It
has been served. I have heard Ms Iyer for the Plaintiffs and Mr
Chinoy for Defendants Nos. 13 and 14.

¶17

Page 1 of 2
14th March 2017

¶18

31-CHS319-17.DOC

¶19

2.The amendments sought are indeed substantial. Yet I believe
they should be permitted. They include material that came to the
Plaintiffs’ knowledge only after the Suit was filed. Some of this is
pursuant to plans that were disclosed in the Affidavit in Reply filed
by Defendants Nos. 1 to 13 before the Competent Authority under
the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963. Further, in the
Affidavit in Reply to the Notice of Motion in this Suit, Defendants
Nos. 1 to 13 disclosed that the MCGM has sanctioned further
building plans in the 2015 and 2016. Hence these amendments.

¶20

3.Given the nature of these amendments, all rights and
contentions of all the Defendants must expressly be left open.

¶21

4.The Chamber Summons is allowed in terms of prayer clause
(a). Amendments to be carried out on or before 17th March 2017. A
copy of the amended plaint will be served on the Advocates for the
Defendants on or before 22nd March 2017.

¶22

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 321 OF 2017:

¶23

5.Ms Iyer seeks leave to withdraw the Chamber Summons. The
Chamber Summons is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.

¶24

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶25

Page 2 of 2
14th March 2017

Shree Ameya Co. Operattive Housing Society Ltd. v. Smt Laxmibai Ganpat Chogle and 16 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shree Ameya Co. Operattive Housing Society Ltd. v. Smt Laxmibai Ganpat Chogle and 16 Others

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

L. J. Tanna Shares and Securities Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors. Vs Financial Technologies (India) Limited and 31 Ors.

Sunrise Agencies Vs Pepe Jeans India Limited

Samir Vali Sayyed Vs M/S. Millionaire Realtors and 2 Ors.

Neelu Chirag Trivedi and Anr. Vs Argento Home Products LLP and 2 Ors.

Nayan Arvind Shah Vs Jayesh Kanji Maru and Anr.

Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Digivive Services Pvt. Ltd.