Allowed

Devendra Vijay Darda and Anr. v. Official Liquidator High Court Bombay and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Apr 2024IA/3106/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim application, the Bombay High Court allowed an amendment to the suit title to delete a non-registered society defendant and substitute the address of another defendant after failed service, holding the changes were formal in nature.

What did the court decide?

Interim application made absolute; title clause amended to delete Defendant No. 2 and substitute address of Defendant No. 1; writ of summons issued.

Devendra Vijay Darda and Anr. Vs Official Liquidator… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

(53)IA-3106-2023.doc

¶2

rajshree

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3106 OF 2023

¶6

¶7

SUIT NO.1051 of 2019

¶8

Devendra Vijay Darda and Anr. ] .. Applicants In the metter between Devendra Vijay Darda and Anr. ] .. Plaintiffs

¶9

vs.

¶10

Official Liquidator High Court Bombay & Anr.] .. Defendants

¶11

Ms.Pooja Shah i/b Maneksha and Sethna for the Applicants.

¶12

CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE, J

¶13

DATE : 18^th April, 2024.

¶14

P.C.

¶15

1] Interim Application is taken out by the Plaintiff seeking amendment in the Suit, as per the schedule appended thereto.

¶16

The application state that after filing of the Suit, the Plaintiff came to know that Defendant No.2 has not been granted registration as a Cooperative Housing Society and, therefore, it cannot be sued and hence permission is sought to delete Defendant No.2 from the cause title.

¶17

Digitally signed by RAJSHREE RAJSHREE KISHOR KISHOR MORE MORE Date: 2024.04.20 11:01:35 +0530

¶18

As far as Defendant No.1 is concerned, the attempt to serve writ of summons upon Defendant No.1 was unsuccessful, as the summons were returned with remark from the office of the Sheriff of Bombay, as ‘Left’.

¶19

1/2

¶20

(53)IA-3106-2023.doc

¶21

In the wake of above, the title clause of the Plaint is sought to be amended to substitute address of the Defendant No.1, as set out in the Schedule.

¶22

2] In the wake of above, the title cause of the Plaint is sought to be amended to substitute the address of the Defendant No.1 as set out in the schedule.

¶23

As the amendment is formal in nature and do not change the nature of the proceedings, I deem it appropriate to grant the same.

¶24

Interim Application is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b).

¶25

Necessary amendment to be carried out, as per schedule, within a period of one week from today.

¶26

Reverification is dispensed with.

¶27

3] Pursuant to the amendment being carried out, issue writ of summons to defendants by making it returnable on 01/07/2024, to appear and answer as per Order V Rule 1 and 2 (Bombay Amendment) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and as per Form 9 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules 1980.

¶28

The writ of summons shall be served by personal service or by Registered Post Prepaid for acknowledgment. In addition, the writ of summons may be served by fax, speed post or courier with acknowledgment or by electronic mail service in accordance with the Bombay High Court Service of Process by electronic mail service (civil proceedings) Rules 2017.

¶29

[BHARATI DANGRE, J]

¶30

2/2

Devendra Vijay Darda and Anr. v. Official Liquidator High Court Bombay and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Vijay Darda and Anr. v. Official Liquidator High Court Bombay and Anr.

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

Santosh Cordeiro vs Motilal Oswal Financial Services Limited

Steer Advisory Services Private Limited vs Horizon Packs Private Limited

M/S. Anjali Hotels Private Limited, Pune Vs Airport Authority of India, Pune

Mumbai Shahar Berojgar Seva Sahakari Sanstha Federation Limited vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (Mcgm)

Mahavir Enterprise vs State of Maharashtra through the Ministry of Food

Goqii Technologies Private Limited vs Sokrati Technologies Private Limited