Dismissed

Yogesh Mehta v. the Stock Exchange,Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Oct 2018NMS/2159/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed the defendants' Notice of Motion seeking security for costs of over Rs. 50 lakhs. The court noted the application was filed ten years after the suit and found no basis for the claimed amount or the stated inability to pay.

What did the court decide?

Application for security for costs dismissed; liberty to apply for costs upon success in main suit.

Yogesh Mehta Vs the Stock Exchange,Mumbai and Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1/3

¶2

3.NMS2159.09.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2159 OF 2009

¶5

¶6

SUIT NO.7044 OF 1999

Yogesh Mehta

)….Plaintiff

V/s.

The Stock Exchange, Mumbai & Ors. )....Defendants/Applicants

¶11

Ms.Sonal a/w Mr.Ankit Tripathi, Mr.Filji Frederick and Mr.Subham Mittal I/by FF and Associates for plaintiff.

¶12

Mr.Pesi Modi, senior Advocate a/w Mr.Nihar Mody and Mr.Arnav Mohanty I/by Wadia Ghandy and Co. for defendants/applicants..

¶13

CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J

¶14

DATE : 9.10.2018

¶15

P.C.:-

¶16

This Notice of Motion is taken out to direct plaintiff to

¶17

furnish security for the payment of all costs incurred and likely to be incurred by defendant nos.1 to 11 in defending this suit and the amount indicated is about Rs.50 lakhs. This application is taken out under Order 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

¶18

The reason why this application has been taken out can be found in paragraph-2 of the affidavit in support which reads as under :-

3.NMS2159.09.doc

2/3

“The Exchange has moved the present Notice of Motion for and on behalf of itself and Defendant Nos.2 to 11 who were members of the Exchange's Governing Board at the relevant time. The Exchange has moved the present Notice of Motion as Defendant Nos.1 to 11 have reason to believe that it will be difficult if not impossible to realize the costs of the said proceedings, from the plaintiff if and when ordered by this Hon'ble Court, as the plaintiff does not have sufficient funds or assets to pay Defendant Nos.1 to 11 the same. In this regard it is pertinent to note that the plaintiff was declared to be a defaulter on 10^th December 1996 since he failed to meet his financial obligations on the Exchange, and the present suit is in respect thereof.”

¶23

Therefore, the applicant, because the plaintiff was declared as a defaulter and his membership was terminated states that the plaintiff does not have sufficient funds or assets to pay cost to defendant nos.1 to 11 should the applicant succeed in this suit.

¶24

Mr.Mody at the outset stated that there is no basis as to how figure of Rs.50 lakhs has arrived at. In any event, defendant should have taken out this application promptly after the suit is filed, the suit has been filed in 1999 whereas Notice of Motion is taken out in 2009, 10 years later. I find nothing in the affidavit in support as to why after 10 years, applicant felt it necessary to take out this Notice of Motion, particularly when the termination of membership happened even before the suit was filed. For any interim relief promptitude is one of the basic criteria.

3.NMS2159.09.doc

3/3

5. Notice of Motion dismissed. At the same time, if

¶29

defendants succeed, defendants are at liberty to apply to the court for

¶30

substantial costs and that can be considered at that time.

¶31

(K.R.SHRIRAM,J)

¶32

Yogesh Mehta v. the Stock Exchange,Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Mehta v. the Stock Exchange,Mumbai and Ors.

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

Bla Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gannon Dunkerly and Co.Ltd

Resons Investments Private Limited Vs Vishaldeep Spinning Mills Ltd. (Cin U17100MH1997PLC111932)

Prathviraj Vijay Dandnaik Vs Mitsu Engineering and Another

Jehangir Adi Wadia and 3 Ors. Vs Reshamsingh Pyarasingh and 7 Ors.

Malka Bhavesh Shah and Anr. Vs Tejraj G. Gowani and 5 Ors.

M/S Fairwood Project Management and Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Envirox Protection Co. Pvt. Ltd. Cin No. U29219MH2007PTC167005