High Court of Bombay allowed an application to strike off Defendant No. 2 from a commercial suit due to absence of cause of action and lack of opposition despite a long pendency.
Defendant No. 2 was struck off as a defendant to the suit; no further proceedings against them in the suit; plaint to be amended within two weeks.
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.
Nikita Gadgil 1 of 2 33-NMS-3-14 in CMS-13-13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3 OF 2014
IN
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 13 OF 2013
Adi Burjorji Godrej...Applicant
In the matter between
Harilal Jalan ...Plaintiff
Vs.
Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. & Anr. …Defendants
Ms. Shaheda Madraswala i/b Vashi & Vashi, Advocate for
Applicant/Respondent.
Mr. Sagar Jadhav i/b Mr. Dhananjay Pathak, Advocate for plaintiff.
CORAM :G.S. KULKARNI, J.
DATE :29 JANUARY 2020
P. C.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
2. By this notice of motion, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs;
“ a. That the Plaint be rejected against Defendant No.2;b. In the alternative to prayer (a) above, Defendant No. 2 be struck off as a Defendant to the Suit and all proceedings and/or application therein;c. That pending hearing and final disposal of the above Notice of Motion, the hearing of Suit be stayed sin a die;d. Ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer (c) above.e. For costs of the present Notice of Motion; andf. Such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.”3. On 19 October 2018, this court (Coram S. C. Gupte, J) had passed the following order:
Nikita Gadgil 2 of 2 33-NMS-3-14 in CMS-13-13
“This notice of motion is for striking of the name of
Defendant No.2 from the cause title of the suit. Learned
Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that he would like to take
instructions of his client on this application. Learned
Counsel submits that the Plaintiff is also in the process of
filing his own application for addition of certain parties.
Learned Counsel, in the premises, seeks time. Stand over to
21 November 2018.”
4. Despite the above order, no reply has been filed. The consequence
being that all averments as made in the affidavit filed in support of the
notice of motion remain unconverted and would be required to be taken as
admitted by the plaintiff. This apart, on a perusal of the avarments as made
in the plaint, it is also clear that the plaintiff do not have any cause of
action against defendant No.2 and merely because of certain information
came to the notice of the plaintiffs from the website of the defendant no.1
and from the database of the Registrar of companies, defendant no.2 is
impleaded as a party to the present suit.
5. In view of the above discussion and as there is no opposition to this
notice of motion, which is pending for more than six years despite of ample
opportunities to the plaintiff to defend the same, the notice of motion is
required to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause
(b).
7. Necessary amendment in the plaint be carried out within a period of two weeks from today.
8. Disposed of in the above terms.
[G.S. KULKARNI, J.]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Defendant No. 2 should be struck off as they have no cause of action against them.
Whether no opposition should result in the notice of motion being allowed.
Adi Burjorji Godrej
G. S. Kulkarni
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court