Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: CNR No.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.108 OF 2018
IN
SUIT NO.1092 of 2017
The Board of Trustees of Port of Mumbai ...Plaintiff
V/s.
Captain Lalit Wahi ...Defendant
Appearances:
Ld.Adv. M/s M.v. Kini & Co. for plaintiff
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI ABHIJEET A.
NANDGAONKAR
(C.R.No.20)
DATED : 06th July,2018
ORDER
By way of this chamber summons plaintiff prayed for amendment
of the plaint as per schedule attached to the chamber summons in
respect of correction of the claim amount.
2. In supporting affidavit of Rajendra Walinkar for plaintiff
submitted that, they have filed suit against defendant, who was working
as a Pilot with plaintiff undertaking. He was on contract basis during
the period from 23.06.2009 till the appointment on regular basis. For
about six months defendant was on training during the contract period
and has been appointed as regular Pilot in the plaintiff undertaking
from 20.03.2012. In pursuance to the appointment defendant filed
letter dt.16.04.2013 tendered his resignation to plaintiff. Defendant
MHCC01-000865-2018
-- 1 of 4 --
Cs 108/2018 .. 2 .. Suit No.1092/2017
again vide letter dt.23.04.2013 intimated his desire to relieve from the
duty. Therefore, defendant, who has undertaken to plaintiff, liable to
pay Rs.5,47,342.50/ being the amount equivalent to six months salary,
a further sum of Rs.3,22,473.12/ being the salary paid during the
training period and excess payment for the period from 25.04.2013 to
30.04.2013 of Rs.16,076.04 and recovery for short notice of 21 days of
Rs.62,218.04/ being the salary paid during the training period having
left the plaintiff undertaking during bond period. Therefore, plaintiff
has filed this suit against defendant. But during the course of typing
there appear inadvertent mistake in duration of period and calculating
of amount thereof. Therefore, it needs to be corrected. For which
plaintiff prayed for chamber summons be allowed.
3. Suit is at initial stage. Even the writ of summons is not served.
Therefore, prior service of writ of summons upon defendant if the
correction is made out, it will carry proper pleadings against defendant
and as such the proposed amendment is necessary to be carried out. It
will not change the nature of the suit nor cause prejudice to defendant.
Due diligence is also shown as soon as plaintiff came to the knowledge
of mistake, they have sought amendment in the plaint. Therefore, to
determine the real question of controversy involved between the parties
the proposed amendment is necessary. It will suffice the ends of justice.
Therefore, chamber summons needs to be made absolute. In the
circumstance it will be proper to direct plaintiff to bear the costs and
hence, I pass the following order :
O R D E R
1. Chamber Summons No.108 of 2018 in Suit No.1092 of
2017 is made absolute.
-- 2 of 4 --
Cs 108/2018 .. 3 .. Suit No.1092/2017
2. Plaintiff to carry out amendment within 14 days from the
date of this order and amended copy of plaintiff be filed
on record and be served on defendant.
3. Plaintiff to bear the costs.
(ABHIJEET A. NANDGONKAR )
Judge, (C.R.No.20)
Dt.:06/07/2018 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 06.07.2018
Transcribed on : 07.07.2018
Signed on : 07.07.2018
kps/
-- 3 of 4 --
Cs 108/2018 .. 4 .. Suit No.1092/2017
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
07.07.2018 at 1.48 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
(KISHOR PRAKASH SHERWADE)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI A.A.
NANDGAONKAR
(COURT ROOM NO.20)
Date of pronouncement of judgment/order 06.07.2018
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 07.07.2018
Judgment/order uploaded on 07.07.2018
-- 4 of 4 --