Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM.No.378/2019 : 1 : Summary Suit No.416/2017
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 378 OF 2019
IN
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 288 OF 2018
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 416 OF 2017
CNR NO. MHCC01-000995-2019
1. Mr. Siddhartha Tantia .. Applicant/Defendant No.2
In the matter between:
M/s Time Technoplast Ltd.
V E R S U S
1. M/s Tantia Agrochemicals Pvt. Ltd.,
and Another. .. Defendants.
Appearance:
Advocate Mr. Sarang Satpute for the Plaintiff.
Advocate Mr. Nupur Jalan Sathaye for the Defendants.
CORAM : H.H.J. SMT. S.S. NAGUR,
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
(C.R.NO.13)
DATE : 04th March, 2020.
ORAL ORDER
1. The notice of motion is filed by defendant no.2 to condone the
delay of 15 days to file leave to defend the summons for judgment.
2. The notice of motion is supported by affidavit of Siddhartha
Tantia. He on oath stated that he was out of station in between
26.12.2018 to 05.01.2019. The defendant no.1, Company is under
winding up proceedings before Calcutta High Court, therefore, to get
-- 1 of 4 --
NM.No.378/2019 : 2 : Summary Suit No.416/2017
the documents from official liquidator, the delay is caused to file leave
to defend application. Hence, prayed to allow the notice of motion.
3. The plaintiff filed reply through his Advocate stating that the
reasons explained for 15 days delay in filing appearance by Defendants
is unjustified and unreasonable. The defendant’s Advocate has
addressed letter dated 01.09.2018 and 03.09.2018, to the Advocate for
the plaintiff thereby has confirmed that they have received writ of
summons on 27.08.2018 and going to cause appearance in the Court
on 05.09.2018. In respect of winding up of defendant no.1-Company,
the plaintiff stated that it is for the defendant to prove that Company
has wounded by order dated 09.09.2016 by the Hon’ble High Court at
Calcutta. Hence, prayed to dismiss the notice of motion.
4. Heard the learned Advocate Ms. Nupur Jalan for defendant no.2
and Advocate Mr. Jitesh Agarwal for the plaintiff. Perused the contents
of the notice of motion and reply of the plaintiff. I have also gone
through the record of the proceeding.
5. The defendant is seeking condonation of delay to file leave to
defend to the summons for judgment. The Advocate for the plaintiff
stated that defendant’s Advocate were aware of the summons for
judgment on 01.09.2018. On perusal of the reply filed by Advocate for
the plaintiff to the notice of motion the date of 01.11.2018 is the date
of service of writ of summons and not service of summons for
judgment. The leave to defend is to be filed by the defendant after the
service of notice of summons for judgment.
6. The roznama shows that the plaintiff filed draft copy of summons
for judgment on 15.09.2018, after the defendant filed their appearance
-- 2 of 4 --
NM.No.378/2019 : 3 : Summary Suit No.416/2017
in the suit. The delay of 15 days is because of the defendant no.2 was
out of station. The defendant no.2 has relied on the xerox copy of the
Flight ticket to show that he was not in the city in that period. The
defendant no.2 has also relied on the xerox copy of order of Hon’ble
High Court at Calcutta in winding up petition i.e. order sheet to show
that the company is under liquidation. The defendant no.2 desires to
seek leave to defend the summons for judgment. There is delay of 15
days. No prejudice will cause to the plaintiff, in case the application is
allowed. The plaintiff can be compensated with cost. Hence, the
following order is passed:
O r d e r
1. The Notice of Motion No.378 of 2019 is allowed on
payment of cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand
only) to the Plaintiff to be paid within one month
from the date of the order.
2. On payment of the above costs within the above period,
Defendant No.2 is allowed to seek leave to defend the
Summons for Judgment by condoning 15 days delay.
3. Accordingly, Notice of Motion No.378 of 2019 is
disposed of.
(Smt. S.S. Nagur)
Date: 04.03.2020 Assistant Sessions Judge
Gr. Mumbai.
Dictated on : 04/03/2020
Transcribed on : 06/03/2020
Sign on : 07/03/2020
-- 3 of 4 --
NM.No.378/2019 : 4 : Summary Suit No.416/2017
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
(S.G.)
11.03.2020 11.50 a.m. Mrs. Pradnya S. Naik
Name of the Judge HHJ Smt. S.S. Nagur
(CR No.13)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
04.03.2020
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 07.03.2020
Judgment/order uploaded on 11.03.2020
-- 4 of 4 --