Skip to main content
Court Order

Final Order 1

CNR MHCC01000401201819 Jan 2018
City Civil Court, Mumbai
Mumbai · Maharashtra (MH)
Back to Case

Full Order Text

Final Order 1 · 19 Jan 2018 · CNR MHCC010004012018

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 1 TA5.18
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
Transfer Application No.5 of 2018
In
Summons For Judgment No.202 of 2013
In
Summary Suit No.2532 of 2013
M/s.Crompton Greaves Ltd. ..Plaintiff
V/s.
Michigan Savitar Consortium
& Ors. ..Defendants (Applicants)
Coram : H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Mrs.P.V. GANEDIWALA
Dated : 19th January,2018
(C.R.No.19)
Advocate Ms.Shilpa Kapil for plaintiff.
Advocate Mr.Zuben Dalal with advocate Ajay Nailkar for defendants
applicants.
O R A L O R D E R
In this application, the applicantsoriginal defendants
sought transfer of the proceeding i.e. Summons for Judgment
No.202/13 in Summary Suit No.2532 of 2013 from C.R. No.14 to C.R.
No.2.
2 It is submitted by the ld.counsel for the applicants that
matter was originally assigned to C.R. No.10. The Ld.Presiding Officer
of C.R. No.10 had already heard the arguments in the said proceeding
and the Ld.Presiding Officer of C.R.10 kept the matter for orders on 15th
June,2017. However, in the meanwhile Ld.Presiding Officer of C.R.
No.10 transferred to C.R. No.2. In November,2017 Summary Suit
-- 1 of 3 --
2 TA5.18
No.2532/13 was also transferred to C.R. No.14 and the next date is
30th January,2018. Therefore, he prays to transfer the matter to C.R.
No.2.
3 The ld.counsel for the respondentplaintiff strongly
opposed the application on the ground that the arguments were heard
in June,2017 i.e. long back and the present application is filed in
January,2018.
4 I have considered the submissions on behalf of both the
parties. At the outset, I found substance in the argument of the
Ld.Counsel for the respondent that after seven months of hearing of
arguments, the present transfer application is filed. Had the application
been filed immediately after transfer of the Ld.Judge, it would have
been a different case. After seven months, I do not think that whatever
argued before the Ld.Judge is fresh in her mind. It is expected that as
soon as argument is heard, the order/judgment are to be passed. In
such circumstances, I do not find merit in this application and hence I
pass following order:
O R D E R
T.A. No.5/2018 stands rejected.
19/01/2018 (P.V. GANEDIWALA)
Principal Judge,
Gr.Bombay.
Dictated on : 19/01/2018
Transcribed on : 19/01/2018
Signed by HHJ on : 19/01/2018
-- 2 of 3 --
3 TA5.18
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
Name of Stenographers: Mrs.Aruna S. Jayade
Upload date and time: 19/01/2018 (At 5.00 p.m.)
Name of the Judge H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Mrs.P.V.GANEDIWALA(C.R.No.19)
Date of Pronouncement of Order 19th January,2018
Order signed by P.O. on 19th January,2018
Order uploaded on 19th January,2018
-- 3 of 3 --

TrustJury presents public court-record information for legal discovery and reference. Record availability and detail can vary by source and case.