Bombay High Court
Sbi Global Factors Ltd vs Global Hi Tech Industries Ltd. And 3 Ors on 10 March, 2022
Author: A. K. Menon
Bench: A. K. Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.106 OF 2018
IN
PRIYA
RAJESH
SOPARKAR COMMERCIAL SUMMARY SUIT NO.57 OF 2010
Digitally signed by
SBI Global Factors Limited ... Plaintiff
PRIYA RAJESH
SOPARKAR
Date: 2022.03.11
17:24:44 +0530
vs.
Global Hi Tech Industries Limited and ors., ... Defendants
Mr.Dhaval Patil i/b. M/s K. Ashar & Co. for the Plaintiff.
Mr.Satish Sudhakar Raut for Defendant No.1.
CORAM : A. K. MENON, J.
DATED : 10th MARCH, 2022.
P.C. :
1. Mr.Patil appearing on behalf of the plaintiff states that although time was sought from the court on various occasions to serve Summons for Judgment upon defendant Nos.2 to 4, the defendant Nos.2 to 4 are not available at their last known addresses.
2. I find from the record that after service of the Writ of Summons a Vakalatnama was filed by M/s ALMT Legal on 14 th September, 2010. The record indicates that the Summons for Judgment is taken out only in 2018.
Thus, the Summons for Judgment ought to have served on M/s ALMT Legal at the proper time that has not been done.
3. Today, Mr.Patil states that he has instructions to proceed against 17 sj 106-18 in comss 57-10.odt 1/2 p r soparkar defendant Nos.2 to 4. He also points out that the Advocate M/s ALMT Legal have since been granted discharge on 13 th December, 2018, he produces a copy of the order passed by the Additional Registrar (O.S.) granting discharge and directing the Advocate to inform defendant Nos. 2 to 4 about the order. The defendant Nos.2 to 4 have not made any alternate arrangement. There is no Advocate on record for defendant Nos.2 to 4 and there is no question of serving Summons for Judgment upon the defendants personally.
4. Mr.Patil therefore, states that he will now proceed to seek instructions on proceedings with the suit against defendant Nos.2 to 4 ex-parte, since they have not entered appearance after discharge was granted to M/s ALMT Legal. However, the Advocate for plaintiff shall now inform defendant Nos.2 to 4 at their last known addresses of the fact that the suit will now proceed as an undefended suit against defendant Nos.2 to 4.
5. As far as the 1st defendant is concerned, Mr.Patil states that he has already obtained leave under Section 446 of the Companies Act to proceed against the company in liquidation. Since pleadings are complete as between plaintiff and defendant No.1, list Summons for Judgment against defendant No.1 for hearing on 24th March, 2022.
(A.K. MENON, J.) 17 sj 106-18 in comss 57-10.odt 2/2 p r soparkar