Allowed

J. M. Financial Services Limited v. Nomura Financial Advisory and Securities (India ) Private Limited and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Apr 2024IA/5097/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim application in a commercial suit, a single judge identified as Manish Pitale allowed the application filed by J. M. Financial Services Limited to strike out its name from the suit array. The plaintiff conceded the prayer while reserving the right to add the entity later if advised.

What did the court decide?

The application was allowed to strike out the name of the Applicant from the array of parties in the suit and accompanying pleadings.

J. M. Financial Services Limited Vs Nomura… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2024)

bipin prithiani

910-ia-5097.22.doc

BIPIN DHARMENDER Digitally signed by BIPIN DHARMENDERPRITHIANI PRITHIANI Date: 2024.04.05 11:18:07 +0530

¶5

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

¶6

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5097 OF 2022

¶7

¶8

COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 276 OF 2022

¶9

J. M. Financial Services Limited

¶10

… Applicant/ Defendant No.3

¶11

In the matter between : Dr. A. Velumani … Plaintiff Versus Nomura Financial Advisory and Securities (India) Private Limited & Ors. … Defendants

¶12

… Defendants

¶13

¶14

Mr. Shyam Kapadia a/w Sahil Harjani and Aradhana More i/by Desai & Diwanji for the Applicant in IA/5097/2022 and for Defendant No.3 in COMS/276/2022.

¶15

Mr. Devvrat Singh a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav and Mr. Umesh Gupta for the Plaintiff.

¶16

Ms. Kaazvin Kapadia i/by Trilegal for Defendant No.1. Mr. Udit Raghuwanshi i/by Divya Jain for Defendant No.2. Mr. Kalash Bakliwal i/by Akash Menon for Defendant No.4.

¶17

Ms. Priyanka Desai i/by Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas for Defendant Nos.5 and 6.

¶18

Mr. Rahul Karnik for Defendant No.7.

¶19

¶20

CORAM: MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : 4^th APRIL 2024

¶21

P.C. :

¶22

. By this application, the applicant/original defendant No.3 is praying for striking out/deletion of its name from the array of parties in the suit and also in the accompanying applications and other pleadings.

bipin prithiani

910-ia-5097.22.doc

Affidavits in this application have been filed by the parties and it is ready for arguments.

¶27

At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that in the light of the statement made in paragraph 7.1(i) of the present application, the plaintiff concedes to prayer clause 12(i) of the application.

¶28

Nevertheless, a further statement is made that J. M. Financial Limited has to be added as a party to the suit. The plaintiff is at liberty to take appropriate steps in that regard, if so advised about which this Court expresses no opinion at this stage.

¶29

In view of the above, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause 12(i), which reads as follows :

¶30

“i. That the name of the Applicant/Original Defendant No.3 be struck out/deleted from the array of parties in the Suit and any other accompanying Interim Applications and other pleadings in the Suit.”

¶31

The plaintiff shall carry out necessary amendments within two weeks from today. Re-verification is dispensed with.

¶32

MANISH PITALE, J.

J. M. Financial Services Limited v. Nomura Financial Advisory and Securities (India ) Private Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J. M. Financial Services Limited v. Nomura Financial Advisory and Securities (India ) Private Limited and Ors.

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

Nitin Girdharlal Raichura Vs Ramaben Girdharlal Raichura Alias Ramaben G. Raichura (Deceased)

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited through Dattatraya Mamadapur vs the Great Eastern Shipping Company Limited

Harshit Narendra Mehta Vs Darayus Cawasha Balsara (Deceased)

Mohd. Wasim Abdul Rehman Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra

Sagar Bapuso Nichite vs State of Maharashtra

Akbar Abdul Sattar Qureshi vs State of Maharashtra