Court dismissed the suit as withdrawn by the plaintiff's counsel seeking leave to withdraw due to commitments in London courts, without ordering costs.
Suit dismissed as withdrawn. Refund of court fee allowed. 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.
907-COMS278-16+.DOC
ATUL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
COMM SUIT NO. 278 OF 2016
WITH
COMM CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 7 OF 2016
AND
COMM CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 23 OF 2016
AND
COMM NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 123 OF 2016
AND
COMM NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 125 OF 2016
ICICI Bank UK PLC
Versus
Mihir Mehta & Ors
…Plaintiff
…Defendants
Mr Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Advocate, with Vishal Kanade,
Prasad Shenoy & Yuvraj K Singh, i/b Desai & Diwanji, for the
Plaintiff.
Mr Z Andhyarujina , with Nirav Shah, Munaf Virjee & Nausher Kohli, i/b DSK Legal, for Defendants Nos. 1 to 3.Mr Nirman Sharma, with TS Tijoriwala & AV Acharya, i/b
Tijoriwala & Co, for Defendant No. 4.
CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:16th March 2017
Page 1 of 2
16th March 2017
907-COMS278-16+.DOC
PC:-
1.Mr Dhond seeks leave to unconditionally withdraw the Suit.
He says this is necessary on account of the Plaintiffs' commitment
made to the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division in
London.
2.Mr Andhyarujina opposes the application and at least to the
extent of saying that such leave ought not to be granted without an
accompanying order of costs and some words of censure. This is
based on his submission that portions of an Affidavit filed by the
Plaintiff in the Courts in London as also the plaint before me are, as
he puts it, “false”. Mr Andhyarujina's plea is echoed by Defendant
No. 4. These submissions are disputed by Mr Dhond for the
Plaintiffs.
3.I see no need to enter into this controversy. It will be suffice to
say that when the matter was last before me on 7th and 8th March
2017, I had substantially heard both sides on the question of
maintainability and jurisdiction. Those hearings were inconclusive
and incomplete, mostly for want of time on those days. That is why
they were stood over.
4.The Suit is dismissed as withdrawn. Refund of court fee in
accordance with the Rules. No order as to costs.
5.All previous orders stand vacated. All interim applications are
infructuous and are disposed of accordingly.
(G. S. PATEL, J.)
Page 2 of 2
16th March 2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant leave to withdraw the suit unconditionally.
G. S. Patel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court