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 4]

Bombay High Court

Sanjay Soya Pvt Ltd vs Narayani Trading Company on 9 March, 2021

Author: G.S. Patel

Bench: G.S. Patel

                                                      15-IAL-5011-2020 IN COMIPL-2-2021.DOC




                   Arun



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                  IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
                          INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 5011 OF 2020
                                                    IN
                               COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 2 OF 2021


                   Sanjay Soya Pvt Ltd                                            ...Plaintif
                         Versus
                   Narayani Trading Company                                 ...Defendant


                   Mr Rashmin Khandekar, with Ms Janhvi Chadha and Mr Hardik
                        Sampat, i/b Saurastri Associates LLP, for the Plaintiff
                   Mr Pritesh Burad, with Ms Amruta Patil and Mr Mitesh Visaria, i/b
                        Pritesh Burad Associates, for the Defendantf


                                         CORAM:        G.S. PATEL, J
                                         DATED:        9th March 2021
                   PC:-
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL


Digitally signed
by ARUN
                   1.

I have delivered a reasoned judgment in the Interim RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2021.03.10 Application in this matter. While doing so, I discovered that there is 10:49:25 +0530 a discrepancy between the copy of the Plaint fled in Court and the copy that is available with the Advocates for the two sides.

2. For instance, I fnd that in paragraph 18 of the Plaint fled physically in Court, there is a reference to Defendant being in Jalgaon whereas in the copies that Counsel have, the reference is to Page 1 of 2 9th March 2021 15-IAL-5011-2020 IN COMIPL-2-2021.DOC Chalisgaon. The reference in the Interim Application is however correct. It seems that the Plaint that was digitally fled online in October 2020 was not inadvertently fled in hard copy in Court. Instead, possibly, a printout was taken from an earlier version of the Plaint, and it this that has been printed out and fled physically. The other exhibits and annexures seem to be in order.

3. The Registry is directed to look into the matter and to permit the Plaintif to fle a correct copy of the Plaint, i.e. a version consistent with that which was served on the Defendant. Both 'editions' of the Plaint will be retained for completeness on record. However, a copy of this order will be stitched along with the Plaint that was originally physically fled and the replacement corrected copy that is to be fled.

4. This order will be digitally signed by the Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production of a digitally signed copy of this order.

(G. S. PATEL, J) Page 2 of 2 9th March 2021