Allowed

Anna Mary Sebastian Rodrigues v. the Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika and 6 Ors. and Anthony S Rodrigues-Applicant

Bombay HC5 Nov 2019NMS/769/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This short order allowed a notice of motion to set aside an order dismissing a chamber summons for default in appearance due to an attorney's failure to notify the applicant. The chamber summons was restored to file and listed for hearing.

What did the court decide?

Chamber Summons No. 915 of 2013 restored to file and listed for hearing.

Anna Mary Sebastian Rodrigues Vs the… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1/2

¶2

37-s-369-2010==.doc

¶3

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

¶4

SUIT NO. 369 OF 2010

¶5

Anna Mary Sebastian Rodrigues

¶6

.. Plaintiff

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika & Ors.

¶9

.. Defendants

¶10

ALONG WITH CHAMBER ORDER NO. 304 OF 2015 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 774 OF 2015 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 769 OF 2015 IN

¶11

SUIT NO. 369 OF 2010

¶12

Ms. Fatema Tankiwala i/b L J Law for plaintiff.

¶13

Mr. Sagar Patil for defendant No.1-MCGM.

¶14

CORAM : N.J. JAMADAR, J.

¶15

DATE : 5^TH NOVEMBER 2019

¶16

P.C.

¶17

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 769 OF 2015

¶18

1. Though the notice of motion is not listed today, with the

¶19

consent of the learned counsel for the parties, taken up for hearing.

¶20

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

3. This notice of motion is taken out by the applicant to set aside the order dated 21^st November 2014 passed by this Court in Chamber Summons No. 915 of 2013, whereby the said chamber summons and Notice of Motion No. 455 of 2010 were dismissed for default in appearance of the applicant. In the affidavit in support of the notice of

¶22

Shraddha Talekar PS

¶23

2/2

¶24

37-s-369-2010==.doc

¶25

motion, it is averred that one Mr. Shridhar Kadam was appointed as an attorney to attend to the proceedings before this Court. The counsels, who were then representing the applicant, had returned the papers and the proceedings to the said Shridhar Kadam. However, the latter did not bring the said fact to the notice of the applicant and therefore there was default in appearance.

¶26

4. Having regard to the reasons assigned in the affidavit in support, and in order to advance the cause of justice, the notice of motion deserves to be allowed, and, accordingly, the same is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).

¶27

5. Chamber Summons No. 915 of 2013 thus stands restored to

¶28

file.

¶29

6. Chamber Summons No. 915 of 2013 be listed on 26^th

¶30

November 2019.

¶31

[ N.J. JAMADAR, J. ]

¶32

Shraddha Talekar PS

Anna Mary Sebastian Rodrigues v. the Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika and 6 Ors. and Anthony S Rodrigues-Applicant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anna Mary Sebastian Rodrigues v. the Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika and 6 Ors. and Anthony S Rodrigues-Applicant

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

United India Constructionco. and Anr. Vs Manjitsingh Sukhdevsingh Lamba and 2 Ors.and Sanjay Shivcharan Dunkudu and 2 Ors. (Pro. Defendants)

suresh mohanlal goradia Vs M/S Shah Construction Company Ltd. and Another

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs Urmila and Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Umarani D.Poddar., Vs Shantidevi S. Jhuria andORS

Ajay Sohanlal Jhuria Vs Durgaprasad R. Poddar and Ors.

Sangita Arvind Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.