Allowed

Narendrakumar C Shah v. Ghanshyamdas Saraf College of Arts and Commerce and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC3 Sept 2018CHSW/36/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay allowed a Chamber Summons seeking impleadment of two additional respondents (Respondents 6 and 7). The court held that necessary parties cannot be excluded if there are specific averments of malafide against them, as this would cause non-joinder.

What did the court decide?

Chamber Summons made absolute to implead Respondents 6 and 7; amendment to be carried out within two weeks.

Narendrakumar C Shah Vs Ghanshyamdas Saraf College… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

8.chsw36-18.doc

¶2

DDR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 36 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3176 OF 2017

¶4

Narendrakumar C. Shah ..Applicant/Petitioner

¶5

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶6

Narendrakumar C. Shah ..Petitioner Vs. Ghanshyamdas Saraf College of Arts & Commerce & ors. .. Respondents

¶7

Mr. S.C. Naidu a/w. Ms. Sneha Goyal for the petitioner.

¶8

Dr. Birendra Saraf a/w. Ms. Pooja Kothari & Ms. Ashna Contractor I/by M/s. Federal & Rashmikant for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶9

Mr. P.M. Palshikar for respondent No.4.

¶10

Ms. Jyoti Chavan, AGP – State for respondent No.5.

¶11

Mr. Vishal Kanade a/w. Ms. Pooja Kothari & Ms. Ashna Contractor I/by M/s. Federal & Rashmikant – Newly added respondent Nos. 6 & 7.

¶12

CORAM : B.R.GAVAI &

¶13

M.S. KARNIK, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 3^rd SEPTEMBER , 2018

1/3

8.chsw36-18.doc

P.C. :

By way of present Chamber Summons the applicant/ original petitioner desires to implead the additional respondents as respondent Nos. 6 and 7.

¶19

The application is vehemently opposed by Dr. Saraf, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri Kanade, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of proposed respondents.

¶20

We have seen the affidavit in support of Chamber Summons as well as averments made in the petition. Perusal of the Memo of Petition would reveal that at more than one place the petitioner has made specific averments against the role attributed to the proposed respondents. We are of the view that in case the proposed respondents are not permitted to be impleaded as party respondents, the petition would suffer from non-joinder of necessary parties. The petitioner would be estopped from arguing the point of malafide against the

¶21

2/3

¶22

8.chsw36-18.doc

¶23

respondent Nos. 6 and 7 if they are not before the Court. In that view of the matter we find that the Chamber Summons deserves to be allowed.

¶24

The Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of

¶25

prayer Clause (a) and (b).

¶26

Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from

¶27

today.

¶28

Shri Kanade waives service of notice for added

¶29

respondents.

¶30

(M.S. KARNIK, J.) ( B.R.GAVAI, J.)

¶31

3/3

Narendrakumar C Shah v. Ghanshyamdas Saraf College of Arts and Commerce and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendrakumar C Shah v. Ghanshyamdas Saraf College of Arts and Commerce and 4 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

Harsh Arun Khot Vs State of Maharashtra through Dept. of Higher Technical Edu. and Anr.

Shri. Vishal Mahadev Ingale Vs Shri. Wardhaman Vidyalay and Junior College through the Principal and Headmaster and Ors.

Shivaji Maruti Tone and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Shri Baldev Singh and Ors.

Alimuddin S Ansari Vs Hdil Creative Value and Anr.

Mitesh Varshney Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Anr.

Nilambika Basaveshwar Shikshan Sanstha through Its Secretary Shri. Basavraj Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.