Bombay High Court
Edit Ii Productions vs Standard Chrtered Bank And 3 Ors on 13 March, 2019
Author: G.S. Patel
Bench: G.S. Patel
34-NMSL2304-18.DOC
Atul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 2304 OF 2018
IN
SUIT NO. 461 OF 2010
Edit II Productions ...Plaintif
Versus
Shoeb Mohammed Taj Mohammed Shaikh & Ors ...Defendants
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1244 OF 2016
IN
SUIT NO. 461 OF 2010
AND
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1574 OF 2016
Edit II Productions ...Plaintif
Versus
Standard Chartered Bank & Ors ...Defendants
Ms Sapana Rachure, for the Plaintiff & Applicant in NMSL/2304/
2018.
Ms Kranti SS Anand, for Defendants Nos. 2, 3 & 4/Applicant in
NMS/1244/2016.
Mrs Neeta Karnik, for Defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7.
Mr KI Khandelwal, i/b Khandelwal Associates, for Defendant No. 8
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J
DATED: 13th March 2019
PC:-
Page 1 of 4
13th March 2019
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 02:15:01 :::
34-NMSL2304-18.DOC
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1244 OF 2016
1. The Notice of Motion is of 2016. It was not served on Ms
Rachure who is on record for the Plaintifs until a few minutes ago
when a copy was given to Ms Rachure. There is absolutely no reason
given for this except to say that Ms Rachure and her clients 'know
everything' about the matter. That is not a ground. The Notice of
Motion is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
2. Second, for reasons that are not entirely obvious the Notice of
Motion continues to show the Standard Chartered Bank as
Defendant No. 1. Ms Anand insists that the plaint has not been
amended despite an order of SJ Kathawalla J allowing that deletion.
She ought to have taken search and checked the original records.
The amendment was carried out on 4th January 2017, over two
years ago. She then says she was not served with an amended copy
of the plaint. There is a diference between saying that the
amendment has not been carried out and that a copy of the amended
plaint was not served. Next, Ms Anand says that Court Receiver's
Reports show the 1st Defendant. That is surely irrelevant. A mistake
in the cause title of a Court Receiver's Report cannot alter an
properly efected amendment on the parent court record.
3. Ms Anand next submits that the 1st Defendant cannot be
deleted. That is not a question that I am not even empowered to
examine. There is an order of the Court allowing that amendment.
Page 2 of 4
13th March 2019
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 02:15:01 :::
34-NMSL2304-18.DOC
If the original Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are unhappy with that, their
remedies lie elsewhere.
4. Even on merits there is no substance to this Notice of
Motion. The Applicants/original Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 say the suit
should be dismissed as barred by res judicata. That is impossible.
The Plaintif approached the National Consumer Redressal
Commission in Consumer Case No. 168 of 2014 against the original
1st Defendant, Standard Chartered Bank. It did not succeed. The
National Commission held the Plaintif not to be a consumer. The
Plaintif went to the Supreme Court. On 7th September 2015, the
Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeal. It noted the submission
of counsel for the Plaintif seeking liberty to apply to the National
Commission after dropping the 'suit in question'. The Supreme
Court granted that liberty and directed the National Commission to
decide according to law. The Plaintif went back to the National
Commission, but got no relief. Ms Anand says that this suit does
not, therefore, lie.
5. She is entirely in error. The dispute before the National
Commission was only between the Plaintif and original Defendant
No.1, Standard Chartered Bank. The Plaintif did delete Standard
Chartered Bank as Defendant No.1. Thus, it did 'drop' its suit
against Defendant No.1; and that is all it told the Supreme Court it
would do. The dispute before the National Commission was never
between the Plaintif and Defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
Page 3 of 4
13th March 2019
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 02:15:01 :::
34-NMSL2304-18.DOC
6. The Notice of Motion is without substance. It is dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.
NOTICES OF MOTION (L) NO. 2304 OF 2018 & 1574 OF
2016
7. The Respondent and Defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 will file and
serve their respective Affidavits in Reply to the Notice of Motion (L) No. 2304 of 2018 on or before 26th March 2019. There will be a consolidated Affidavit in Rejoinder to be filed and served on or before 2nd April 2019.
8. List that Notice of Motion for hearing and final disposal on 10th April 2019 along with Notice of Motion No. 1574 of 2016.
(G. S. PATEL, J) Page 4 of 4 13th March 2019 ::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2019 02:15:01 :::