Dismissed

Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.a.Chunawala and Co. and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Apr 2019NMS/44/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Notice of Motion, Atcom Technologies Ltd sought to unclub its suit from two others and challenge a previous consent. The single-judge Bench declined to disturb the existing clubbing order, finding it would prejudice defendants and cause no prejudice to the applicant if suits proceeded jointly. The motion was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Movement to unclub suits and revoke consent was dismissed; the orders of clubbing remain in force.

Atcom Technologies Ltd. Vs Y.a.Chunawala and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

P1-NMS44-19.DOC

¶2

Arun

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 44 OF 2019

¶4

IN

¶5

SUIT NO. 3813 OF 2000

¶6

Atcom Technologies Ltd
Versus
YA Chunawala & Ors

¶7

…Plaintiff

¶8

…Defendants

¶9

Ms Shilpa Kapil, for the Plaintiff and Applicant in Notice of Motion
No. 44 of 2019.

¶10

Mr Mutahhar Khan, with Ms Niyathi Kalra & Ms Rujuta Patil, i/b
Negandhi Shah and Himayatullah, for Defendants Nos. 1, 3 and
4.

¶11

Ms Dhannya Prasad, for Defendant No.2.

¶12

CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:3rd April 2019

¶13

PC:-

¶14

1. Mentioned. Not on board. Taken on board.

¶15

2.I passed an order of 1st April 2019 dismissing the Motion as
withdrawn. Today Ms Kapil says that she did not have instructions
to withdraw the Notice of Motion. So be it. On her request, the

¶16

Page 1 of 3
3rd April 2019

¶17

P1-NMS44-19.DOC

¶18

order is recalled. I will proceed to take up the Motion immediately.
None have any objection.

¶19

3.The Applicant in the Motion is the original Plaintiff in Suit
No. 3813 of 2000, Atcom Technologies Ltd. It seeks that a previous
order clubbing this suit along with Summary Suit No. 4870 of 1999
and Suit No. 305 of 1999 be undone and that Atcom’s Suit No. 3813
of 2000 be tried separately. There is also a prayer that a consent
given by Atcom’s sister concern, Kimaya Wellness, to the clubbing
of the suit on 16th March 2002 be declared to be not binding on
Atcom. There is also a prayer to revoke this consent.

¶20

4.In my view, it is not possible to pass any such order. These
matters have been clubbed together for a very long time and it is of
little consequence that in one particular suit there is no Written
Statement for the simple reason that the other suits are cross suits
and the defence in one is the plaint in the other and vice versa. To
allow this application would effectively mean to give Atcom some
sort of walkover by granting a decree although its claim is opposed
and contested in the companion suits. Conceivably, very great
prejudice would be caused to the Defendants in Atcom’s suit if such
an order is passed.

¶21

5.There is nothing in the Affidavit in Support of this Motion
that persuades me to take the view that the Defendants will not be
prejudiced by the grant of the relief that Atcom now seeks. On the
other hand, Atcom itself is in no way prejudiced if all three suits
proceed together as they have for all these years.

¶22

Page 2 of 3
3rd April 2019

¶23

P1-NMS44-19.DOC

¶24

6. The Notice of Motion is dismissed.

¶25

(G. S. PATEL, J)

¶26

Page 3 of 3
3rd April 2019

Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.a.Chunawala and Co. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.a.Chunawala and Co. and Anr.

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

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Vs Vishal Auti S/O Nivritti and Anr.

Bank of Baroda Vs Maker Development Services Pvt. Ltd.

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Vs Vishal Auti S/O Nivritti and Anr. and the Court Receiver High Court, Bombay

Deep Construction Co. Vs Jitendra N. Patel and Anr.

Mangesh P. Edekr Vs Ramesh Prabhakar Edekar and Ors. and Zarine Mangesh Edekar and Ors.

Shashin Vasanji Shah HUF Vs Ahuja Properties and Developers and 3 Ors.