Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: :1: Ch. S. No.72/2019 in Sum. Suit No.876/2018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
CHAMBR SUMMONS NO. 72 OF 2019
CNR NO.: MHCC010004492019
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 876 OF 2018
M/s. Express Crane Service ...Plaintiff.
Versus
Simplex Infrastructure Limited …Defendant
Appearances:
Advocate Mr. Sandeep Kumbhar for the plaintiff.
Advocate Kaushiki I/b Vidhii Partners for defendant.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
S.P. AGARWAL
(C.R.NO.28)
DATED : 2nd APRIL, 2019.
ORAL ORDER
1. Defendant has stated that due to renovation work being carried
out at the Registered Office of the defendant, Writ of Summons was
received by the security staff of defendant and it was not intimated to
the defendant or his agent empowered to accept the service. Defendant
has further stated that due to “Durga Pooja” Registered Office of
defendant was closed and when it was opened thereafter, defendant
gave instruction to their Advocate to take appropriate steps in the
matter. Defendant has further stated that defendant had to seek papers
and details of transactions from their Kolkata Office and upon inquiry
defendant came to know that Mr. Ashish Kumar Chowdury, one of the
-- 1 of 4 --
:2: Ch. S. No.72/2019 in Sum. Suit No.876/2018
Senior Official of the defendant, who was involved in the transaction at
all material times, was not available as he had been travelling for
business related work. Defendant has further stated that due to Diwali
Vacations they were unable to give instructions to their Advocate.
Defendant has further stated that their Executive Director was unwell
and was not attending Office which also caused delay. Defendant has
further stated that unfortunately Mr. Bagri died and the management of
defendant was entrusted one Mr. Gautam Dasgupta, as Interim in
charge and thereafter, the draft was approved and settled. Defendant
has stated defendant has to coordinate to his Office at Kolkata.
Defendant has further stated that the delay caused is not deliberate or
intentional and prayed to condone delay of 78 days in filing appearance
in the suit.
2. Plaintiff has filed reply to this Notice of Motion and stated that
the reasons stated by defendant are false and no proof given of the
same and prayed for rejection of Chamber Summons.
3. Ld. Advocate for the defendant cited judgment the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi in case of Hector M. Mehta vs. CRB Capital Markets
Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2002 (63) DRJ 408, LA Nos. 822/2002 &
823/2002 in S. No.949/2000, in which it is held that, “Court may
excuse the delay if sufficient cause is shown and the words “sufficient
cause” should be liberally construed so as to advance substantial justice”.
In the case in hand, it is pertinent to see that defendant is the Company
and they are having their Office at Kolkata and Mumbai. Considering
the facts that delay caused is less than 100 days and that defendant has
to coordinate with Advocate and that one of their Officer died, it
appears delay caused in filing appearance is not intentional. But
-- 2 of 4 --
:3: Ch. S. No.72/2019 in Sum. Suit No.876/2018
considering the reason for delay, it appears plaintiff is entitled for cost
for delay caused. Therefore, it will be proper to allow Chamber
Summons subject to cost. Hence, following order :
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons No. 72 of 2019 is allowed subject to cost of
Rs.5,000/ to be given by defendant to plaintiff.
2. Chamber Summons No. 72 of 2019 stands disposed of.
(S.P. AGARWAL)
Judge,
Date: 02.04.2019. City Civil Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 02.04.2019
Transcribed on : 02.04.2019
Signed on : 02.04.2019
-- 3 of 4 --
:4: Ch. S. No.72/2019 in Sum. Suit No.876/2018
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
03.04.2019 At 5:36 p.m. Mr. Subhash Sukhdeo Poul
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ Ms. S.P. Agarwal
(C.R.NO.28)
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
02.04.2019
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 02.04.2019
Judgment/Order uploaded on 03.04.2019
-- 4 of 4 --