Dismissed

Rajguru Developers Private Limited v. Puranchand Lehnasingh Manchanda and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Sept 2023COMAP/169/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court dismissed Commercial Appeals No. 168 and 169 of 2022 for non-prosecution. The Appellant failed to appear despite being cited, leading the Court to conclude the Appellant was not desirous of prosecuting the matter.

What did the court decide?

Commercial Appeals No. 168 and 169 of 2022 dismissed for non-prosecution; interim applications disposed of.

Rajguru Developers Private Limited Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Digitally signed by LAXMIKANT LAXMIKANT GOPAL GOPAL CHANDAN CHANDAN Date: 2023.09.05 16:24:10 +0530

¶2

1 (15)(16) COMAP-168.22&Anr.doc

¶3

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

¶4

COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.168 OF 2022 IN INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4165 OF 2022 IN

¶5

COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.255 OF 2022 WITH

¶6

COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.169 OF 2022 IN

¶7

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4164 OF 2022 IN

¶8

COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.255 OF 2022

¶9

Rajguru Developers Private : Appellant Limited (Orgi. Defendant) V/s. Puranchand Lehnasingh Manchanda : Respondents and others (Orgi. Plaintiffs)

¶10

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3 OF 2023 IN

¶11

COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.169 OF 2022.

¶12

None for the Appellant.

¶13

Mr. Prerak A. Sharma for the Respondents.

¶14

CORAM : DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. & ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. DATE : 04^th SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶15

1 of 3

¶16

LGC

¶17

2 (15)(16) COMAP-168.22&Anr.doc

¶18

P.C. :

¶19

When the matter was called today, none appeared on

¶20

behalf of the Appellant.

¶21

Mr.Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, pointed that on the last occasion i.e. on 22^nd July 2023 as well, none had appeared for the Appellant as also

¶22

the Respondents had not been served with the copies of the compilation of the Appeals. He submitted that the Appellant was therefore clearly not desirous of prosecuting the present Appeals and thus the same may be dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶23

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Respondents, as also on a perusal of the record, we find that the Appellant has failed and neglected to appear in the present Appeals on more than one occasion. It is thus clear that the Appellant is not desirous of prosecuting the present Appeals.

¶24

2 of 3

¶25

LGC

¶26

3 (15)(16) COMAP-168.22&Anr.doc

¶27

In view of above, both the Appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution. In view of dismissal of the Appeals, the Interim Application, if any, does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of.

¶28

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)

¶29

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶30

3 of 3

¶31

LGC

Rajguru Developers Private Limited v. Puranchand Lehnasingh Manchanda and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajguru Developers Private Limited v. Puranchand Lehnasingh Manchanda 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

Sharp Services Vs the Deputy Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commission

M/S. Abhishek Enterprises Thr. Its Prop. Mr. Radheshyam Mevalal Gupta Vs S. P. Enterprises Thr. Its Prop. Mr. Kamlakar Devnandan Yadav

Irfan Imamuddin Suse and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Deptment of Rural Depvelopment and Ors.

Jeevan Builders vs Madhu Jeevan Co-Op Housing Society Limited

Anirudh K. Datta, Sole Proprietor Datta and Datta Associates vs the State of Maharashtra

Probir Manoj Das vs Ketan a. Shah and 2 Ors.