Disposed

Milind Madhavrao Beedkar v. the Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Jan 2024CAW/1149/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court permitted the substitution of The Nasik People's Co-operative Bank Limited with The Saraswat Co-operative Bank Limited in Civil Application No.1149 of 2019 due to a merger. The application was disposed with directions for necessary amendments and service of notices.

What did the court decide?

Original Respondent No.1 permitted to be substituted by Saraswat Co-operative Bank Limited; necessary amendment directed.

Milind Madhavrao Beedkar Vs the Saraswat… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

206.WP.7926.2003_CAW.1149.19.doc

¶2

HARSHADA H. SAWANT (P.A.)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.7926 OF 2003

¶6

Milind Madhavrao Beedkar

¶7

Petitioner / Orig. Defendant No.4

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Nasik People’s Co-operative Bank Limited & Ors.

¶10

.. Respondents

¶11

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1149 OF 2019 IN

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO.7926 OF 2003

¶13

Milind Madhavrao Beedkar

¶14

..^Applicant/ Orig. Defendant No.4^{Petitioner /}

¶15

Versus

¶16

The Saraswat Co-operative Bank Limited & Ors. .. Respondents

¶17

Ms. Rukmini Khairnar i./by P. N. Joshi, Advocate for original Respondent No.1.

¶18

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : JANUARY 04, 2024

¶19

P.C.:

¶20

1. Heard Ms. Khairnar, learned Advocate for original

¶21

Respondent No.1.

¶22

2. Considering the reasons stated in the Application that original Respondent No.1 – Nasik People’s Co-operative Bank Limited

¶23

now stands merged with Saraswat Co-operative Bank Limited, substitution of name of the Bank is permitted in accordance with the name stated in the cause title of the Civil Application and Saraswat Co-

¶24

operative Bank Limited is allowed to be impleaded today.

¶25

1 of 2

¶26

206.WP.7926.2003_CAW.1149.19.doc

¶27

3. Necessary amendment be carried out within a period of one week from today. Re-verification stands dispensed with. Copy of amended cause title be served on the Respondents.

¶28

4. Issue notice to the Respondent No.1. Applicant / Petitioner is directed to serve the Respondent No.1. Humdast permitted. In addition to Court’s notice, Applicant / Petitioner is permitted to serve the Respondent No.1 and inform it about the next date of hearing by any permissible mode of service and file appropriate affidavit of service with tangible proof thereof. Respondent No.1 is directed to file Affidavit-in-Reply to the Petition. Copy of Petition alongwith this order shall be served on the newly impleaded / substituted Respondent No.1 by Advocate for Applicant / Petitioner. An appropriate Affidavit of service to that effect shall be filed.

¶29

5. Ms. Khairnar incidentally appears for the original Respondent No.1 – Nasik People’s Co-operative Bank Limited and would submit that she has not received instructions from the newly impleaded Respondent.

¶30

6. List the Writ Petition on board on 18^th January, 2024 .

¶31

7. With the above directions, Civil Application No.1149 of 2019 is disposed.

¶32

H. H. SAWANT

¶33

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶34

Digitally signed HARSHADAHANUMANT by HARSHADAHANUMANTSAWANT SAWANT Date: 2024.01.06 14:38:14 +0530

¶35

2 of 2

Milind Madhavrao Beedkar v. the Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Milind Madhavrao Beedkar v. the Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanottam Vasant Lonkar and Anr. Vs Gangadhar Vasant Lonkar and Ors.

Dhanottam Vasant Lonkar and Anr. Vs Gangadhar Vasant Lonkar

Shri. Vaijanath Dattatraya Rukari and Anr. Vs Shri. Sandip Balasaheb Bhintade and Anr.

M/S Taa Construction Vs the Kalyan Agricultural Produce Market Committee

Meerasaheb Yaqub Sahab Mujawar(Transposed as R. No. 7) vs Ibrahim Hamidsaheb Mulla

Vishal Chandrakant Trimbake vs State of Maharashtra