Pushpa Devi vs Essel Finance Business Loans Ltd. And ... on 25 August, 2021

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Bombay High Court

Pushpa Devi vs Essel Finance Business Loans Ltd. And ... on 25 August, 2021

Bench: A. K. Menon

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


                                          INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.4034 OF 2020
                                                            IN
                                           ARBITRATION PETITION NO.217 OF 2020


                     Pushpa Devi                                      .. Applicant/Petitioner
                              v/s.
                     Essel Finance Business Loans Ltd.            .. Respondent no.1/Org.Claimant
                              And
                     Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited                      .. Proposed Respondent no.2



                     Mr. Aditya Ajgaonkar a/w Mitesh Jain i/b. Bishwajeet Mukherjee for the
                     applicant/petitioner.

                     None for the respondents.


                                                              CORAM : A. K. MENON, J.

DATED : 25TH AUGUST, 2021.

P.C. :

1. By this application, the applicant seeks leave to amend the petition in terms of the schedule at Exhibit '2'. The learned counsel for the applicant states that the application was attempted to serve on Advocates on record for the respondent but they have refused to accept the same for want of instructions.

Digitally

2. The respondents are represented by Advocates who have entered signed by SANDHYA SANDHYA BHAGU BHAGU WADHWA WADHWA Date:

2021.08.26 1/2 16:12:41 +0530

24.ial-4034-20.doc wadhwa appearance on 2nd March, 2020 and prima facie it was not open to them to refuse service of process once appearance is entered.

He states that the affidavit has been filed in the registry. Copy of affidavit reveals that it is affirmed on 20 th August, 2021 before the registry of this court and sets out the fact that the Advocates for respondent refused to accept the same. An endorsement is made by the Advocates which reads as follows;

"We are no more counsel in the said matter as we have no instruction from the company about the same."

This endorsement is prima facie unwarranted in view of the fact that their vakalatnama has continues to be on record.

3. In view thereof, I find no reason to refuse this amendment. Hence, I pass the following order;

(i) Interim Application is made absolute in terms of prayer clause

(a).

(ii) Amendment to be carried out within one week from today. Re- verification is dispensed with.

(iii) Amended copy to be served within two weeks thereafter.

(iv) Interim Application is disposed in the above terms.

(A. K. MENON, J.) 2/2

24.ial-4034-20.doc wadhwa

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bombay High Court