Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Bina Deepak Panchamia And 10 Ors vs The Bombay Dyeing And Manufacturing ... on 4 December, 2018

Author: Sarang V. Kotwal

Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari, Sarang V. Kotwal

                                          1               901. APPL 441.18.doc

JPP


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

                    APPEAL (LODG.) NO. 441 OF 2018
                                   IN
                  CHAMBER ORDER NO. 17 OF 2016
                                   IN
                         SUIT NO. 212 OF 2016
                                 WITH
                  NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1040 OF 2018

Bina Deepak Panchamia and Ors.                       ... Appellants.

      V/s.

The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing
Company Limited and Ors.                             ... Respondents.


Mr. Sanjay Jain a/w. Mr. Nishant Sasidharan and Ms. Kanizz
Munjee i/b. LJ Law for the Appellants.

Mr. Darius Khambata, Senior Advocate, Mr. J.P. Sen, Senior
Advocate, Mr. Vaibhav Ghogare, Mr. Pheroze Mehta, Ms. Rujuta
Patil i/b. Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah for Respondent 1.

Dr. Birendra Saraf, Ms. Megha Chandra, Ms. Madhu Gadodia, Mr.
Himanshu Chaudhary i/b. Naik Naik and Company for Respondent
No.3.

                                  CORAM : B.P. Dharmadhikari and
                                         Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ.

DATE : 4 December 2018 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:57:56 ::: 2 901. APPL 441.18.doc P.C. :

Heard respective Counsel. Perused order dated 21 August 2018. Order does not in any way decide any lis between parties. The Appellants - Plaintiffs would have taken out Chamber Summons without any prejudice.
2. Contention of learned Counsel for the Appellants is that as matter is expedited, the immediate cognizance of Chamber Order should have been taken.
3. Hon'ble Apex Court as on 18 April 2018 requested this Court to decide the Suit within one year and all interim applications were to be decided within one month. Chamber Order was very much pending at that time.
4. After hearing the respective Counsel we find that even today the Appellants can take out the Chamber Summons. The respective Counsel appearing for the Respondents (Defendants) assure this Court that they will file their reply within one week and the learned Single Judge can thereafter adjudicate the Chamber Summons.
5. As the matter is already expedited, it is apparent that the learned Single Judge will also keep said fact in mind and attempt to deal with the Chamber Summons expeditiously.
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:57:56 :::

3 901. APPL 441.18.doc

6. Hence, with such liberty to the Appellants (Plaintiffs) and keeping all their contentions open, we dispose of the present Appeal.

7. In view of disposal of Appeal No. 441 of 2018, Notice of Motion (Lodg.) No. 1040 of 2018 does not survive and is disposed of accordingly.

(Sarang Kotwal, J.) (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:57:56 :::