Bombay High Court
Value Consulting vs Http:/ /Www.Consumercomplints.In And ... on 9 October, 2018
Author: S.C. Gupte
Bench: S.C. Gupte
sat 1/3 chs 1594-2015.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1594 OF 2015
IN
SUIT NO. 560 OF 2013
Manoj Ramkrishna Patil ...Applicant/Defendant No.6.2
In the matter between
Value Consulting ...Plaintiff
vs.
http://www.consumercomplaints.in & Ors. ...Defendants
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 659 OF 2016
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 3490 OF 2012
IN
SUIT NO. 560 OF 2013
Google India Pvt.Ltd. ...Applicant/Defendant No.4
In the matter between
Value Consulting ...Plaintiff
vs.
http://www.consumercomplaints.in & Ors. ...Defendants
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 722 OF 2016
IN
SUIT NO. 560 OF 2013
Value Consulting ...Plaintiff/Applicant
vs.
http://www.consumercomplaints.in & Ors. ...Defendants
::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 00:56:31 :::
sat 2/3 chs 1594-2015.doc
Mr.Makarand Bakore I/b. Vibhuti Desai for Defendant No.6.2/Applicant in
CHS 1594/2015.
Mr.D. Pednekar, C. Keswani I/b. Economic Laws Practice for Defendant
No.4 / Applicant in NMS 659/2016.
CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.
DATE : 9 OCTOBER 2018 P.C. :
Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant (original Defendant No.6.2).
2 The chamber summons seeks deletion of the Applicant/ Defendant from the array of parties. The Applicant has been joined as Defendant No.6.2 in pursuance of an amendment allowed by this court on 28 April 2014. The suit is for defamation. Insofar as Defendant No.6.2 is concerned, there is no allegation added in the body of the plaint against him so as to connect him to the Plaintiff's cause of action in the suit.
3 The Plaintiff has filed a reply to the present chamber summons. In the reply the Plaintiff refers to a cyber cell report which purportedly shows that the alleged defamatory statements were made from an IP address which purportedly belongs to Defendant No.6.2. Whether or not the IP address, from which the original Defendants made defamatory statements, belongs to the present Applicant (Defendant No.6.2), there is no allegation against him in the plaint as how he is connected to the cause of action. Such connection cannot be supplied by an affidavit opposing the Applicant's chamber summons for deletion.
::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 00:56:31 :::sat 3/3 chs 1594-2015.doc 4 The Plaintiff did not appear at the hearing of the chamber
summons on the last occasion, i.e. 17 July 2018. The Plaintiff is absent even today to show cause to the chamber summons.
5 In the premises, the chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). The Plaintiff shall delete the name of Defendant No.6.2 from the array of parties within two weeks from today.
6 Notices of Motion No.659/2016 and 722/2016 are stood over to 23 October 2018.
(S.C. GUPTE, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 00:56:31 :::