Gati Limited v. Union of India

Bombay HC23 Mar 2026CHOL/484/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gati Limited v. Union of India; Bombay High Court Chamber Order 484 of 2025 in Execution Application (L) 111 of 2019; decided 22.04.2026 (Rajesh S. Patil, J.). Further extension of time to remove office objections in execution of an arbitral award decree allowed despite opposition based on Order VIII Rule 1 CPC and a disputed Delhi High Court citation (M/s. Formosa Plastics Corporation, USA v. Ashok K. Chauhan, delivered 20.09.2011) lacking any recognized source or court watermark; earlier conditional dismissal by Prothonotary & Senior Master had been set aside on 23.03.2026 with four weeks granted.

What did the court decide?

Further extension of time (two weeks sought by praecipe) to remove office objections in Execution Application (L) No. 111 of 2019. ¶¶32

Gati Limited vs Union of India — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CHOL 484-2025.doc

¶2

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

¶3

CHAMBER ORDER NO. 484 OF 2025 IN

¶4

EXECUTION APPLICATION (L) NO. 111 OF 2019

¶5

Gati Limited ..Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Digitally signed by ANAND ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDHAKAR SUDAME SUDAME Date: 2026.04.24 18:40:37 +0530

¶8

Union of India ..Respondent

¶9

Mr. Sagar Kshirsagar i/b. Mr. Dushyant S. Pagare, Advocates, for the Applicant

¶10

Mr. Gautam Modanwal i/b. Mr. T. J. Pandian, Advocates, for the Respondent

¶11

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

¶12

DATE : 22.04.2026

¶13

P. C.

¶14

This matter is moved for further extension of time of two weeks

¶15

to remove office objections by learned Counsel for the Applicant.

¶16

Mr. Modanwal, learned Counsel for the Respondent – Union, has

¶17

strongly opposed the request made by learned Counsel for the Applicant. He has referred to the provisions of O. VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “ CPC ”) and also relied on the Judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Formosa Plastics

¶18

Corporation, USA vs. Ashok K. Chauhan & ors. delivered on 20.09.2011.

¶19

1 of 3

¶20

Anand

¶21

CHOL 484-2025.doc

¶22

I have heard learned Counsel for both the sides.

¶23

First of all, the citation relied upon by learned Counsel for the

¶24

Respondent seems to be not from any recognized neither there is watermark of any Court. He has referred to paragraph 11 which refers to the provisions of O. VIII, Rule 1 of the CPC.

¶25

In the present proceeding, the Applicants are the Decree Holders of an Arbitral Award and their Execution Application was dismissed for non-removal of office objections by a conditional order passed by the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court.

¶26

By the Chamber Order, the Applicant sought to set aside the Order passed by the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court and also to grant further time to remove office objections. On 23.03.2026, after hearing both the parties, the Chamber Order was allowed by this Court and time of four weeks was granted to the Applicant to remove office objections.

¶27

Today, the matter has been moved by a praecipe seeking to grant further time to remove office objections. As per the requisition slip, certain objections were raised in the Execution Application which are required to be complied, by removing office objections. It is normal, it takes time for any Advocate for the Plaintiff/Petitioner to remove office objections. From the record, it appears that the Execution Application

¶28

2 of 3

¶29

Anand

¶30

CHOL 484-2025.doc

¶31

was filed by M/s. Kanga & Co.. Thereafter, the present Advocate has come on record for the Applicant. I had already allowed the Applicant’s Application by setting aside the Order passed by the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court and granted four weeks time to the Applicant to remove office objections. As the Advocate for the Applicant was not able to remove the office objections, he has sought further extension of time to remove office objections. As I showed my inclination to grant time, the Counsel for Railways has further raised his objection. By harping upon the Judgment of which according to him, is of Delhi High Court.

¶32

I am satisfied with the reason given by learned Counsel for the Applicant.

¶33

(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

¶34

3 of 3

¶35

Anand

Gati Limited v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gati Limited v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

The Cosmos Co. Operative Bank Ltd. vs Krishna Structural Steel India Ltd. and 10 Ors.

Roshani Sameer Papal vs Sameer Dinkar Papal

Mrs. Tejaswini Sandip Naikwadi vs Mr. Sandeep Bapurao Naikwade

Muralidharan Ramamurthy vs Lok Housing and Constructions Ltd.

Shri.Kishor Mohanlal Gathani(Shah)Throu. Legal Heirs vs Shri.Shantilal Balubhai Motiwale and Ors.

Shaikh Gunny Shaikh Suleman Vs Shubhangini Nishikant Awaghade and Anr.