Allowed

Idbi Trusteeship Services Limited v. Ojas Tradelease and Mall Management Private Limited and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Jul 2024LPETN/7/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition for leave under Order II Rule 2 CPC to omit to sue the first respondent and other security providers from a suit founded on deeds of mortgage, so as to permit a separate suit on the deeds of guarantee arising from the same transaction. Counsel were ad idem; the court allowed the petition in terms of prayer paragraph 9.

What the court decided

AI extract

Idbi Trusteeship Services Limited vs Ojas… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

6-lpetn-7-2024-corrected.doc

¶2

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

¶3

LEAVE PETITION NO.7 OF 2024 IN

¶4

COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 207 OF 2022

¶5

IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited ...Petitioner V/s. Ojas Tradelease and Mall Management Private Limited and Anr ...Respondents

¶6

Mr. Jehaan Mehta with Mr. Sunil Tilokchandani and Mr. Himalaya Chaudhary i/b Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co., Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Harjsh Moorjani with Mr. Devdattta Uchil i/b Link Legal for Respondents.

¶7

Mrs. S. S. Dukhande, Section Officer, Court Receiver present.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

1. Both the learned Counsel are ad-idem that since the present suit

¶10

NIKITA YOGESH GADGIL

¶11

Digitally signed by NIKITA YOGESH GADGIL Date: 2024.07.24 11:16:02 +0530

¶12

has been filed on the basis of deeds of mortgage and since the underlying claim was also secured upto an amount of Rs. 350 Crs by deeds of guarantee, this application under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( the “CPC”) can be allowed, so that the Plaintiff can also pursue his remedy of filing the suit on the basis of the deeds of guarantee as the claim arises pursuant to the same underlying transaction.

¶13

This order is corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 23^rd July, 2024. Nikita Gadgil 1/2

¶14

6-lpetn-7-2024-corrected.doc

¶15

I have perused the Petition and in particular paragraphs 4, 5 and 9 of the Petition as well as paragraph 29 in the Plaint and I am of the view that in view of the provisions of the Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC as well as submissions made by the learned Counsel, the Petition be allowed.

¶16

Accordingly, the Petition is made absolute in terms of paragraph

¶17

9, which reads thus:-

¶18

“9. That leave under the provisions of Order II Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 be granted to the Petitioner to omit to sue the Respondent No.1 and other parties under the Transaction Documents and/or any other person/party in their capacity as Security Providers for its claim against each of them and the Petitioner reserves its rights to seek further reliefs, remedies and adopt appropriate proceedings for its claim, if so, required in law, arising out of the cause of action including enforcing the securities and for damages and losses caused to the Petitioner for which the Petitioner omits to sue the Respondent No.1 and other parties under the Transaction Documents as described in the above Suit and for all the reliefs other than those claimed therein.”

¶19

4. Petition accordingly stands allowed.

¶20

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶21

This order is corrected as per speaking to minutes of the order dated 23^rd July, 2024. Nikita Gadgil 2/2

Idbi Trusteeship Services Limited v. Ojas Tradelease and Mall Management Private Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Idbi Trusteeship Services Limited v. Ojas Tradelease and Mall Management Private Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

The Board of Mumbai Port Authority vs Dlb Nand Gaurav

Bharat Udayog Limited vs Mahrashtra Industrial Devlopment Corporation

Suresh Barkya Ghume vs Behram Hemavand Irani Namdarian (Since Deceased) Thr. Lrs. Homai W/O Behram Namdarian (Irani)

Ketan Vinod Chhatkar vs Aditya Enterprises

Indusind Bank Limited vs Sunita Sharma and 2 Ors.

Bharat Udayog Limited vs Mahrashtra Industrial Devlopment Corporation