Disposed¶32

Kaynet Finance Limited v. Rajendra S Daga

Bombay HC9 Mar 2026IA/7640/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NSE Ltd. v. Kaynet Finance Ltd.; Commercial Suit No. 69 of 2024, Bombay High Court O.O.C.J., Gauri Godse J., order dated 30-03-2026; deletion of defendant no. 3 (order dt. 09-03-2026 on I.A. 621 of 2026) and defendant no. 5 (order dt. 06-01-2025); consequential amendments to plaint and pending interim applications I.A. 3061 of 2024 and I.A. 7640 of 2025; endorsement under Rule 152 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules; adjourned to 27-04-2026.

What did the court decide?

Consequential amendments to the plaint for deletion of defendant no. 3 permitted (within two weeks); time to complete the amendment, reverification and endorsement arising from the order dated 6 January 2025 extended by three weeks; corresponding amendments to be carried out in the pending interim applications; matter stood over to 27 April 2026. ¶32

Kaynet Finance Limited vs Rajendra S Daga — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff may carry out consequential amendments to the plaint consequent upon the direction to delete the name of defendant no. 3 (order dated 9 March 2026). +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

The plaintiff is permitted to carry out consequential amendments in the plaint with reference to deletion of defendant no. 3, to be carried out within two weeks.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

Endorsement through the concerned officer of the amendment carried out pursuant to the order dated 6 January 2025 is permitted, and time to complete the amendment, reverification and endorsement is extended by three weeks.

¶37

Key takeaways

Necessary amendments pursuant to both the aforesaid orders shall also be carried out in the pending interim applications.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction (Gauri Godse, J.), Commercial Suit No. 69 of 2024 — National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. v. Kaynet Finance Limited (order dated 30 March 2026): Following the order dated 9 March 2026 partly allowing Interim Application No. 621 of 2026 of defendant no. 3 and directing deletion of its name, the plaintiff was permitted to carry out consequential amendments in the plaint within two weeks. As the amendment made pursuant to the order dated 6 January 2025 (deletion of defendant no. 5) remained unendorsed under Rule 152 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, time for completing the amendment, reverification and endorsement was extended by three weeks, with corresponding amendments to be carried out in the pending interim applications (I.A. Nos. 3061 of 2024 and 7640 of 2025). Matter stood over to 27 April 2026.

¶1

49-COMS-69-2024.docx

¶2

rrpillai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 69 OF 2024

¶4

WITH

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3061 OF 2024

¶6

National Stock Exchange of … Plaintiff

¶7

India Ltd.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Kaynet Finance Limited

¶10

… Defendant

¶11

WITH

¶12

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7640 OF 2025

¶13

¶14

COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 69 OF 2024

¶15

Kaynet Finance Limited … Applicant

¶16

In the matter between

¶17

National Stock Exchange of … Plaintiff India Ltd.

¶18

Vs.

¶19

Kaynet Finance Limited … Defendant

¶20

Mr. Ranjeev Carvalho a/w. Mr. Rishabh Murali a/w. Mr. Sachin Chandarana, Mr. Amol Rasal i/b. Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co. for the Original Plaintiff.

¶21

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

¶22

DATE : 30^th MARCH 2026

¶23

ORDER :

¶24

Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAJESHWARI RAMESH RAMESH PILLAI PILLAI Date: 2026.04.01 15:25:38 +0530

¶25

Mentioned out of turn by the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

¶26

1/3

¶27

49-COMS-69-2024.docx

¶28

By order dated 9^th March 2026 Interim Application No.

¶29

621 of 2026 filed by defendant no. 3 is partly allowed. By the

¶30

said order the plaintiff is directed to delete name of defendant no. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that while

¶31

deleting the name of defendant no. 3, consequential amendments will be required in the plaint. He therefore seeks leave to carry out consequential amendments.

¶32

The plaintiff is permitted to carry out consequential amendments in the plaint with reference to deletion of defendant no. 3. Consequential amendments to be carried out within two weeks.

¶33

Plaintiff was permitted to delete defendant no. 5 vide order dated 6^th January 2025. Reverification was not dispensed with. Amendment carried out pursuant to the said order is not endorsed in terms of Rule 152 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules.

¶34

Learned counsel for the plaintiff therefore seeks permission to get the amendments carried out as per order dated 6^th January 2025 endorsed through the concerned officer.

¶35

2/3

¶36

49-COMS-69-2024.docx

¶37