Disposed

Hemlata Vijaysingh Ved and 4 Ors. v. the Provident Investment Co. Ltd. and 4 Ors. and Naina a Goculdas and Anr. (Applicants)

Bombay HC10 Nov 2022CHS/909/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge set aside abatement and allowed applications by legal representatives to bring themselves on record and amend the Plaint, condoning a 40-day delay to advance substantive justice.

What did the court decide?

Abatement set aside. Applicants permitted to be brought on record. Plaintiffs allowed to amend Plaint in accordance with Schedule.

Hemlata Vijaysingh Ved and 4 Ors. Vs the Provident… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

Digitally signed SWAROOPSHARAD by SWAROOPSHARADPHADKE PHADKE Date: 2022.11.11 12:24:20 +0530

¶2

23 chs 909 of 2017.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.909 OF 2017 IN

¶4

SUIT NO.36 OF 1969

¶5

…
Naina Ajay Goculdas and Anr. Applicants
and
…
Hemlata Vijaysingh Ved and Ors. Plaintiffs
versus

¶6

The Provident Investment Co. Ltd. and Ors. …Respondents

¶7

Mr. Ankit Lohia with Mr. Bharat Jain, Mr. Abhishek Dubey i/by Economic Laws
Practice, for Applicants.
Mr. A.R.Varma with Mr. Y.S.Bhate, for Defendant No.2
Mr. Arun Siwach with Mr. Karan Gandhi i/by Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, for
Defendant Nos.4 and 5.

¶8

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE: 10^th NOVEMBER, 2022

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by the Applicants who

¶11

claim to be the legal representatives of Plaintiff No.5, who passed away on 12th April,

¶12

2016. The Applicants assert that they are the only legal representatives of deceased
Plaintiff No.5 as Ajay, Son of deceased Plaintiff No.5, husband of Applicant No.1 and
father of Applicant No.2 Shyam, predeceased Plaintiff No.5.

¶13

2. The Application is supported by a copy of the death certificate and the

¶14

affidavit.

¶15

3. An Affidavit in Reply is filed on behalf of Defendant No.1 resissting the

¶16

prayers in the Chamber Summons. It is contended that the Applicants have not placed

¶17

SSP 1/2

¶18

23 chs 909 of 2017.doc

¶19

on record the testamentary instruments on the basis of which the Applicants are
claiming to be the successor in interest of deceased Plaintiff No.5. It is further
contended that there is a delay of about 40 days in taking out the Application which
has not been satisfactorily explained. The Plaintiff No.5 passed away on 12th April,
2016 and the Chamber Summons is preferred on 22th September, 2016.

¶20

4.In paragraph No.6 of the Application, the Applicants have made an
endeavour to account for the delay in taking out the Application. The reasons
assigned in Paragraph No.6 cannot be said to be unsustainable. In any event, the
Court is expected to lean in favour of the condonation of delay so as to advance the
cause of substantive justice. It is pertinent to note that the claim of the Applicants is
not solely based on the testamentary succession. They claim to be the wife and son of
predeceased son of deceased Plaintiff No.5. Thus, to advance the cause of substantive
justice, Chamber Summons is allowed.

¶21

5. Abatement stands set aside.

¶22

6.The Applicants are permitted to bring them on record as legal
representatives of deceased Plaintiff No.5.

¶23

7.The Plaintiffs are allowed to amend the Plaint in accordance with the

¶24

Schedule annexed to the Chamber Summons.

¶25

8.The Chamber Summons stands disposed.

¶26

( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

¶27

SSP 2/2

Hemlata Vijaysingh Ved and 4 Ors. v. the Provident Investment Co. Ltd. and 4 Ors. and Naina a Goculdas and Anr. (Applicants)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemlata Vijaysingh Ved and 4 Ors. v. the Provident Investment Co. Ltd. and 4 Ors. and Naina a Goculdas and Anr. (Applicants)

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

Gujarat State Financial Corporation Vs B I F R and 2 Others

The Federal Bank Ltd. Vs the Official Liquidator and Liquidator of Gol Offshore Limited Cin No. L11200MH2005PLC154793

The Official Liquidator of Elder Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (in Liquidation) Vs Puspasen C. Jhaveri

Suresh K. Jogani Vs Karan Champalal Vardhan

Kaulchand H Jogani Vs Shree Vardhan Investment and 6 Ors.

Suresh K. Jogani Vs Champalal K. Vardhan