Bombay High Court
Hdfc Bank Ltd vs Datar Switchgear Ltd.And Ors. on 5 February, 2026
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: Abhay Ahuja
27-S-3040-2001.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally
signed by ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
KANCHAN
KANCHAN PRASHANT
PRASHANT DHURI
DHURI Date:
SUIT NO. 3040 OF 2001
2026.02.05
19:26:58
+0530 HDFC Bank Ltd. ... Plaintiff
Versus
Datar Switchgear Ltd. and others ... Defendants
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7447 OF 2025
IN
SUIT NO. 3040 OF 2001
............
Mr. Pradeep Bakhru alongwith Mr. Kaizad Dalal and Mr. Piyush Kranti
instructed by Wadia Ghandy & Co., Advocate for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Gaurav Mehta alongwith Mr. Mukul Taly, Ms. Shifa Quraishi and
Mr. Ravi Kamble instructed by S. Mahomedbhai & Co., Advocate for the
Applicant/Defendant No.2.
Ms. Sharva Patel instructed by Little & Co., Advocate for the Defendant
No.3.
Ms. E.S. D'Souza. Section Officer of the Court Receiver's office, present.
............
CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE : 5 FEBRUARY 2026
P.C. :
1. This matter was kept back in the morning session as the learned Advocate appearing for the Plaintiff sought time to take instructions as to whether or not the suit can be withdrawn. Kanchan Dhuri 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2026 20:52:04 :::
27-S-3040-2001.doc
2. When the matter is called out in the afternoon session, another Counsel appears for the Plaintiff and submits that time be granted to file reply to the Interim Application that has been filed.
3. This kind of practice of seeking time to file reply, when the matter has been kept back, to take instructions in the matter is deprecated.
4. The Court time has to be respected by all the concerned. This Court is getting an impression that if the Plaintiff is not having its way then for different reasons time is being sought, wasting precious judicial time of this Court. It is observed that the Interim Application was filed and served on 27 th November 2025, today we are on 5 th February 2026 and yet no reply has been filed.
5. In the morning session, another learned Counsel was appearing for the Plaintiff and he had simplicitor sought time to take instructions in the matter.
6. After hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the Defendants, this Court had put to the learned Advocate appearing in the morning session as to whether or not the Plaintiff could withdraw the suit and therefore, the matter was kept back to take instructions on the same.
Kanchan Dhuri 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2026 20:52:04 :::
27-S-3040-2001.doc
7. As noted above, another Counsel has appeared in the afternoon session and is now seeking time to file reply to the Interim Application and therefore for wasting judicial time, this Court is inclined to impose costs.
8. Accordingly, subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- to the Indian Army Welfare Fund, within a period of two weeks, let reply to the Interim Application No.7447 of 2025 be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter, with copy to the other side. Rejoinder be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter, with copy to the other side.
9. Subject to the above, list on 26th March 2026.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.) Kanchan Dhuri 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2026 20:52:04 :::