Dismissed

Bmc K/W Ward Paliram Path, Opp Best Depot Andheri W Mumbai 400058 v. Girdharlal Nathubhai Dalal and 10 Others

Bombay HC3 May 2021CAA/2/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an interim application and restored a dismissed company appeal. It held that courts should not let litigants suffer due to advocate errors. The court disposed of a third party's intervention application but permitted them to file a formal intervention.

What did the court decide?

Appeal restored; interim application allowed; time extended; intervention application disposed with liberty to file fresh one.

Bmc K/W Ward Paliram Path, Opp Best Depot Andheri W… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

8.caa-2-21-order-2.doc

¶2

1 / 4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION NO.2 OF 2021

¶4

¶5

COMPANY APPEAL NO.20 OF 2016 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.120 OF 2013

¶6

Star Grain & Shipping Pvt Ltd. ....Applicant In the matter between Star Grain & Shipping Pvt Ltd. & Anr ….Appellants V/s.

¶7

Girdharilal Dalal & Ors ….Respondents

¶8

WITH COMPANY APPLICATION (L) NO.5 OF 2019 IN COMPANY APPLICATION NO.2 OF 2021

¶9

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) No.10925 OF 2021 IN

¶10

COMPANY APPLICATION NO.2 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.10956 OF 2021 IN COMPANY APPEAL NO.20 OF 2016

¶11

Mr. Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Malcolm Siganporia, Mr. Hormuz Mehta and Mr. Ahsan Allana i/b. J. Sagar Associates for appellant/applicant.

¶12

Mr. Shanay Shah a/w. Ms. Monisha Mane i/b. Parinam Law for respondent no. 3.

¶13

Mr. Haresh Jagtiani, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Vandana Mehta and Mr. Yashpal Jain i/b. Yashpal Jain for applicant in CAAL/5/2019/Interventor.

¶14

CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J. DATED : 3^rd MAY 2021

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.10925 OF 2021

¶17

Meera Jadhav :- This order has been modified pursuant to the speaking to the minutes of order dated 7th May 2021

¶18

8.caa-2-21-order-2.doc

¶19

2 / 4

¶20

1 Heard Mr. Nankani and also considered the application. For the reasons mentioned in the application, particularly in paragraph 13 and the grounds mentioned in paragraph 16, interim application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and accordingly disposed. Amendment to be carried out within one week from today. Wherever the hand written corrections are made, Ms Jyoti Dalal should come to the court and initial those paragraphs, within one week from today.

¶21

2 At the same time, in view of the present situation, I would proceed to hear the restoration application being Company Application No.2 of 2021 before the amendment is also carried out.

¶22

COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 2 OF 2021

¶23

3 This is an application for restoration of company appeal that came to be dismissed by a self operative order dated 11^th January 2018. Though a detailed background in the application has been given for the various orders passed, the crux of the application is found in paragraphs 28 and 30 of the application by which, applicant is seeking : a) extension for taking steps to bring the legal heirs of respondent no.1 on record and (b) consequently recall of the dismissal of the appeal by the self operative order.

¶24

4 Applicant states that the lawyers have advised him to state that it was

¶25

an error on part of the lawyers that the appeal came to be dismissed. It is the same set of lawyers, who are now appearing for applicant and that is why, I am not seeking an explanation from the lawyers. No court would

¶26

Meera Jadhav :- This order has been modified pursuant to the speaking to the minutes of order dated 7th May 2021

¶27

8.caa-2-21-order-2.doc

¶28

3 / 4

¶29

want a litigant to suffer due to an error by their advocates and here is an advocate, who has been candid and honest to the court as well as to its clients that it was their mistake which resulted in the appeal getting dismissed. I would, therefore, accept the explanation and (a) extend the time to take steps to bring the legal heirs of respondent no.1 on record and (b) consequently restore the appeal.

¶30

5 Time to take steps to restore Company Application (L) No.4 of 2018 as mentioned in the order dated 11^th January 2018, is extended upto and including 10^th June 2021.

¶31

6 I have to note that Mr. Jagtiani appeared on behalf of one Chetan Dalal, who has filed an intervention application bearing Company Application (L) No.5 of 2019 in the present Company Application No.2 of 2021. Mr. Jagtiani submitted that affidavit in support of this application contained all lies and the court was being misled into passing the order. In my view, restoration application is between applicant and the court and the court is entitled to exercise its discretion. No third party can have a say in that. At the same time, if, Mr. Jagtiani’s client wishes to take out an intervention application in the appeal, they may do so, if so advised, and he may raise all points in the application including his client’s allegations that the affidavit in support to Company Application No.2 of 2021 contained all lies and seek dismissal of the appeal and the court will consider that application on its own merits including Mr. Nankani’s contentions whether

¶32

any third party can intervene in an appeal filed under Section 10F of

¶33

Meera Jadhav :- This order has been modified pursuant to the speaking to the minutes of order dated 7th May 2021

¶34

8.caa-2-21-order-2.doc

¶35

4 / 4

¶36

Companies Act, 1956.

¶37

7 Company Application No.2 of 2021 accordingly stands disposed.

¶38

COMPANY APPLICATION (L) NO.5 OF 2019

¶39

8 In view of the above, Company Application (L) No.5 of 2019 taken out by Chetan Dalal also stands disposed with liberty to take out such

¶40

intervention application, if so advised as mentioned above.

¶41

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

¶42

th May 2021

¶43

Meera Jadhav :- This order has been modified pursuant to the speaking to the minutes of order dated 7

Bmc K/W Ward Paliram Path, Opp Best Depot Andheri W Mumbai 400058 v. Girdharlal Nathubhai Dalal and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bmc K/W Ward Paliram Path, Opp Best Depot Andheri W Mumbai 400058 v. Girdharlal Nathubhai Dalal and 10 Others

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

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mohan Vitthal Chavan

The State of Maharashtra Vs Bablu Damu Ubale and Ors.

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs a Consortium of Sime Darby Engineering Sdn. Bhd

K C Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs Girdharlal Nathubhai Dalal and 10 Ors.

Mumbai Municipal Corporation through Administrative Officer Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Vitthal Baburao Kolpe and Anr.