Allowed

Universal Edu Infra Services Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Others v. Rudra Infra

Bombay HC4 Jan 2023IA/4911/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this interim application, the High Court of Bombay Commercial Division allowed applicants to file a Vakalatnama in condonation of a four-day delay due to Diwali vacation, dismissing the plaintiff's opposition.

What did the court decide?

Interim Application allowed to file Vakalatnama on record in condonation of delay.

What the court decided

Universal Edu Infra Services Pvt. Ltd. and 4… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

MUGDHA M PARANJAPE

¶2

1 18-IA 4911-22 in COMSS 74-22.doc

¶3

Digitally signed by MUGDHA M PARANJAPE Date: 2023.01.06 10:13:47 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4911 OF 2022

¶5

¶6

COMMERCIAL SUMMARY SUIT NO.74 OF 2022

¶7

Universal Edu-Infra Services Pvt. Ltd.

¶8

& Ors. … Applicants/Defendants Vs. Rudra Infra … Respondent In the matter of : Rudra Infra … Plaintiff

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Universal Edu-Infra Services Pvt. Ltd.

¶11

& Ors. … Defendants

¶12

Mr. Akash Menon for the Applicants/Defendants.

¶13

Mr. Shreejit A. Singh i/by M/s. Khandelwal Associates for the Respondent/ Plaintiff.

¶14

CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. DATE : 04TH JANUARY 2023

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

By the present Interim Application, the Applicants seek

¶17

condonation of delay of a period of four days in filing the Vakalatnama.

¶18

Mugdha

¶19

1 of 4

¶20

2 18-IA 4911-22 in COMSS 74-22.doc

¶21

The Interim Application sets out that the Summons was served upon the Applicants/Defendants on 19/10/2022 and accordingly the Applicants were required to file the Vakalatnama of their advocates within a period of ten days, i.e., on or before 31/10/2022. It is stated that after service of the Summons there was a slight delay in procuring the signatures of all the Applicants on the Vakalatnama on account of the ensuing Diwali Vacation. It is further stated that the delay in procuring the signatures on the Vakalatnama was unintentional.

¶22

The Interim Application sets out that on 01/11/2022, i.e., one day after the period of ten days expired, the Applicants attempted to file the Vakalatnama in the Registry of this Court, however, the Registry refused to accept the same. It is in this backdrop, the Applicants have preferred the present Interim Application praying that the Vakalatnama on behalf of the Applicants may be taken on record by condoning the delay of four days.

¶23

The Plaintiff has filed the Affidavit-in-Reply opposing the present Interim Application.

¶24

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff submits that the primary ground for opposing the present Interim Application is that the Applicants/Defendants have failed and neglected to explain what prevented them during the period of ten days post service of the Summons from obtaining

¶25

Mugdha

¶26

2 of 4

¶27

3 18-IA 4911-22 in COMSS 74-22.doc

¶28

the signatures of all the Applicants/Defendants. He submitted that since the Applicants/Defendants had not adequately explained this, the present Interim Application ought to be dismissed. He additionally submitted that the Applicants/Defendants were aware of filing of the present Suit and thus could not plead any ignorance of the same.

¶29

I have heard both the learned Counsel and I am satisfied that the opposition on behalf of the Plaintiff to this Interim Application for condonation of delay is entirely without any merit and that the Interim Application deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice.

¶30

The contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff that, the Applicants have not explained what they did during the period of ten days time post service of the summons, is belied from a plain reading of Paragraph 2 of the Interim Application wherein the Applicants have plainly stated that it was on account of the ensuing Diwali Vacation that there was delay in obtaining the signatures of all the Applicants. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs is entirely misplaced and untenable.

¶31

Mugdha

¶32

3 of 4

¶33

4 18-IA 4911-22 in COMSS 74-22.doc

¶34

The interim Application deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clauses (i) and (ii) of the Interim Application.

¶35

The Interim Application is disposed of.

¶36

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)

¶37

Mugdha

¶38

4 of 4

Universal Edu Infra Services Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Others v. Rudra Infra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Universal Edu Infra Services Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Others v. Rudra Infra

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

Ratnakar Jayaram Shetty Vs Shetty Jayram @ Jayaram Thimappa Shetty @ Shetty Jayaram Thimappa (Deceased)

Jiten Navinchandra Shah Vs Navinchandra Keshavji Shah Alias Navinchandra K Shah(Deceased)

Dev Narayan Shitlaprasad Singh Vs Meetaba Ramnarayan Singh (Petitioner) and Ram Narayan Shitla Prasad Singh (Deceased)

Ifci Factors Ltd. Vs Amar Remedies Ltd. through Official Liquidator,High Court, Bombay and 2 Ors.

Sitalakshmi Harihara Subramanian Vs Gopalakrishnan Harihara Subramanian (Deceased)

Monika Baid through Power of Attorney Holder Sh.Chhatar Singh vs Reliance Finance Ltd.