Order 4

Order Details: Order below exhibit
Pdf Text: 1 Order on Exh. 15,18 & 19 in Suit no.6320
MHCC010007192019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
COMMON ORDER ON EXHIBITS NO. 15, 18 AND 19
IN
SUIT NO. 63 OF 2020
CNR NO.MHCC01000719-2019
Bennett Colemn and Company Ltd.
Through R Krishnamurthy ...Plaintiff
V/s
Pramod Shrivastava
Chairman Reform India and Consortium Led by
Reform India ...Defendants
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI KISHORE M. JAISWAL
(COURT ROOM NO.01)
DATE : 2nd DAY OF MAY, 2022
Defendant inperson
Adv. Hiremath for the plaintiff
ORAL ORDER
All these applications are filed by the defendant. The
plaintiff has strongly opposed the applications by filing say on
affidavit. Heard both the sides at length.
2. At the very outset of the present applications it is
neither in the form of notice of motion nor in the form of chamber
-- 1 of 5 --
2 Order on Exh. 15,18 & 19 in Suit no.6320
summons. As such it is not in the prescribed format as provided
under Bombay City Civil Rules 1948. For different reliefs, different
format is provided but the defendant has not taken out appropriate
proceedings as per said rules. Therefore on that ground itself these
applications are not maintainable.
3. It is pertinent to note that vide order before Exhibit 10
passed by my learned predecessor on 17/01/2020, the defendant
was specifically directed to desist from making such applications.
There is nothing on record to indicate that the defendant has
deposited the costs as per order dated 29/07/2019. On that count
also these applications are liable to be dismissed.
4. The defendant is seeking reliefs under Order 8 Rule 6 of
the Civil Procedure Code 1908 i.e. for setoff and dismissal of suit.
In my opinion, the application is vague and the grounds which are
submitted cannot be considered for dismissal of suit being not
maintainable. The main suit is for seeking injunction against the
defendant as there was allegations that the defendant was trying to
enter into the premises of the plaintiff at different locations and
was also sending defamatory emails and communications. The
present suit is not for a recovery of an amount for which the set off
under Order 8 Rule 6 of the CPC can be claimed. Even otherwise
these applications are not filed at the first hearing of the suit. The
defendant has already filed written statement and has not claimed
any setoff therein. It is a matter of record that as per order in
Notice of motion no. 4424/19 the injunction order is running in
favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant who is prevented
from making any defamatory statements or disseminating
-- 2 of 5 --
3 Order on Exh. 15,18 & 19 in Suit no.6320
communications with the plaintiff company or with the senior
functionaries either by email or any other manner whatsoever.
5. It is pertinent to note that in the applications there is
reference of some orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and
Hon'ble Delhi High Court and copies of those orders are not placed
on record by the defendant. Previously, the application of
defendant for dismissal of the suit is already rejected. The
defendant has placed reliance on the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya
Naidu (dead) by L.Rs., V. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs., and
others AIR 1994 Supreme Court 853 wherein it was held that
“Proceeding in court – Fraud by litigant – Withholding of vital
document relevant to litigation – It is fraud on Court – Guilty party
is liable to be thrown out at any stage, – Litigant obtaining
preliminary decree for partition of property Not mentioning at
trial as to his having executed before filing of suit release deed in
respect of property in favour of his employer – Decree is vitiated by
fraud”. I have gone through the aforesaid ruling . The defendant
has not pleaded as to which particular vital document is withhold
by the plaintiff. The aforesaid ruling is in respect of partition the
suit. The present suit is for injunction. Therefore said ruling is not
applicable under given circumstances.
6. There is no doubt about the fact that the Courts of Law
are meant for imparting the justice between the parties and one
who comes to the Court must come with clean hands. Unless the
defendant has pointed out about which document is necessary for
adjudication of this case, the plaintiff's suit cannot be summarily
thrown away at this stage. The plaintiff has placed on record the
-- 3 of 5 --
4 Order on Exh. 15,18 & 19 in Suit no.6320
copy of order passed by 64th Court esplanade, Mumbai in
CCNo.2839/MISC/2019 wherein the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate has rejected the application for return of property on
07/11/2020. Thus in view of my above discussions, I do not find
any merits in these applications and therefore, I pass the following
order.
ORDER
Applications Exhibit 15, 18 and 19 stands dismissed.
Costs in cause.
Case to proceed further.
(Kishore M. Jaiswal)
Judge, City Civil & Sessions
Date:.02.05.2022 Court, Gr.Mumbai (C.R.No.01)
Dictated on : 02.05.2022
Transcribed on : 02.05.2022
Signed on : 02.05.2022
-- 4 of 5 --
5 Order on Exh. 15,18 & 19 in Suit no.6320
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE: 04.05.2022 NAME OF STENOGRAPHER(G I)
Mrs. V. V. Mhatre
TIME:
Name of the Judge (With Court room no.) HHJ Shri Kishore M. Jaiswal.
(Court Room No.1)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGEMENT/ORDER
02.05.2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on 02.05.2022
JUDGEMENT/ORDER uploaded on 04.05.2022
-- 5 of 5 --