Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: Chamber Summons No.63 of 2018 1 Suit No. 8081/1998
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS No.63/2018
IN
SUIT NO.8081/1998.
(High Court Suit No. 2893 of 1998)
Mrs. Vrishali Namjoshi. ... Plaintiff
V/s.
M/s. Infosys Technologies Ltd. & Ors .. Defendants
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. GOPAL G. BHANSALI.
(C.R. NO.07)
DATE : 23rd January, 2019.
APPEARANCE :
Ms. Ankanksha Agrawal, Advocate for Plaintiff.
Mr. N.G.Raut, Advocate for Defendant no.1
Mr.A.H. Mukri, Advocate for Defendant no.4.
ORAL ORDER
This is a chamber summons taken out by the defendant
no.3 for amendment in written statement. It is claimed for deletion of
paragraph no.5 and para 10(viii) from her written statement. For the
sake of convenience para no.5 and para no. 10(viii) of the written
statement is reproduced as under :
Para 5. : Without prejudice to the aforesaid contentions this Defendant
submits that the Defendant has in her turn as far back as
September 1997, already sold the shares on the National Stock
Exchange through their subbroker Dinesh Investment, who in
turn has sold the shares in settlement No. 37 of 1997 on the
-- 1 of 5 --
Chamber Summons No.63 of 2018 2 Suit No. 8081/1998
National Stock Exchange through registered broker M/s. Cream
Investment and Trading Co. Ltd., Mumbai. The Defendant has sold
the shares with duly signed blank transfer deeds and as such this
Defendant has today no right, title or interest whatsoever in the
suit shares having received the full consideration thereof. In the
circumstances,the suit as against this Defendant be dismissed with
costs.
10(viii) In the circumstances this Defendant has already divested
herself of all right, title and interest in the suit shares and it is the
ultimate transferee who now has right, title and interest thereto.
2. In addition to deletion of above two paragraphs, it is
requested for additional paragraph no. 10(ix) in respect of 100 shares
were received back to the defendant no.3 through her broker as ''bad
delivery''. It is claimed for amendment in written statement. It is
strongly resisted by the plaintiff and remaining defendants. The
learned advocate Mr.Mukry for defendants no.3 submits that defendant
no.3 has purchased 500 shares in the year 1995 and appropriately
transferred in the name of defendant no.3 in September 1997. 100
shares were sold in the market and defendant no.3 received the
consideration. It is added about its subsequent development in respect
of bad delivery. D.W.1 A.G.S.Manikantha admitted before the Court in
respect of refusal to transfer of part share, the present suit came to be
filed by the plaintiff. Defendant no.2 and 4 are claiming 200 shares and
present suit is for 300 shares. In short, it is submitted that defendant
no.3 has no interest in the suit, however, 100 shares were received back
to defendant no.2. Therefore, it is claimed for amendment in the
written statement.
3. The learned advocate for N.G. Raut for defendant no.1
-- 2 of 5 --
Chamber Summons No.63 of 2018 3 Suit No. 8081/1998
submits that shares of defendant no.1Company are in question.
However, as present suit is preferred, defendant no.1 has stopped to
transfer the shares. It is added that everything submitted by defendant
no.1 is beyond stretch of imagination and limitation. It is requested to
reject the chamber summons.
4. The learned advocate Ms. Ankaksha Agrawal for plaintiff
submits that all aforementioned facts claimed to be amended are prior
to August 1998. Defendant no.3 has submitted written statement in the
year 1999. All these facts are known to defendant no.3 before 20 years.
It is requested to reject the written statement. It is necessary to note
issues are framed in the present suit on 21.09.2007 when suit was
pending before the Hon'ble High Court to the original side. It is
important to note that in para no.5, defendant no.3 came with the case
that all impugned shares has been sold for appropriate consideration in
para no.10(viii) of written statement filed by defendant no.3. It is
mentioned that defendant no.3 has already divested herself and no
right, title or interest in the impugned shares is left with defendant
no.3. The learned advocate for plaintiff relied on Vidyabai and Others
v/s. Padmalatha and Another (2009) 2 S.C.C.409 and Prabhakar
Sadashiv Gokhale and another v/s. Ramesh Shankar Ladkat and Others
2017(4)Mh.L.J.634. The scope of order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil
Procedure is discussed at length and it is observed that amendment may
be allowed if it is necessary in deciding question in controversy.
However, precondition of due diligence of party required to consider
by the court before allowing amendment.
5. In the present case document of defendant no.1 are
-- 3 of 5 --
Chamber Summons No.63 of 2018 4 Suit No. 8081/1998
exhibited. Archana Upadhayay, witness of defendant no.1 National
Stock Exchange deposed before the court vide Exh.14. Defendant no.1
Manikantha completed his testimony. Defendant no.4 Kisan Kishor
deposed vide Exh. 23. As aforesaid, issues are framed on 21.09.2007.
6. It is necessary to note that defendant no.3 has submitted
written statement on 28.12.1999. Accordingly 20 years are over. As
mentioned above, the suit is partheard and it is now turn of defendant
no.3 to enter into the witness box.
7. It is not clarified by defendant no.3 that to extent of
amendment about '' bad deliver'' whether any documents were annexed
with written statement filed in the year 1999. As aforesaid plaintiff
came with the case that it is divested from all shares and now he cannot
be allowed to come with different stories to the extent of 100 shares
debited to his account as received back by way bad delivery.
8. It is to note that aforesaid facts sought to be amended by
the defendant no.3 were known to him before the 20 years, more
specifically before allowing written statement by defendant no.3. At the
cost of repetition, it is to note that witness of all sides are over except
defendant no.3. In short, amendment sought by defendant no.3
deserve to be rejected. Hence, the order :
FINAL ORDER
The chamber summons no. 63 of 2018 preferred by
defendant no. 3 stands rejected.
No order as to costs.
The Chamber Summons No. 63 of 2018 is disposed of
accordingly.
-- 4 of 5 --
Chamber Summons No.63 of 2018 5 Suit No. 8081/1998
(The suit is 20 years old,partheard and parties to
expedite the hearing)
(Gopal G.Bhansali )
Judge,
Date:23.1.2019. City Civil Court, Gr.Mumbai.
Dictated on : 23.1.2019
Transcribed on : 23.1.2019
Signed on :
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT.”
18.02.2019 at 11.50am. PUSHPA RAMESH WAGH
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI G.G.BHANSALI
(Court Room No.07)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment 23.01.2019
Judgment signed by P.O. on 03.02.2019
Judgment uploaded on 18.02.2019
-- 5 of 5 --