Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM.No.449/2019 : 1 : Summary Suit No.416/2017
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 449 OF 2019
IN
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 288 OF 2018
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 416 OF 2017
CNR NO. MHCC01-001134-2019
1. Mr. Rahul Tantia
2. Ashok Kumar Surana .. Applicants/Defendant
Nos.3 and 4.
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 Plaintiff.
Advocate Mr. Nupur Jalan Sathaye for 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 nos.3 and 4 to
condone the delay of 5 days to file leave to defend the summons for
judgment.
-- 1 of 4 --
NM.No.449/2019 : 2 : Summary Suit No.416/2017
2. The notice of motion is supported by affidavit of Mr. Rahul Tantia
and Mr. Ashok Kumar Surana. They are residing permanently in
Kolkata. The defendant No.1-Company has been wound up by an order
dated 09.09.2016, passed by the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta. The
official liquidator has taken possession of the assets of the defendant
No.1-Company. Therefore, the records are with the official liquidator.
The delay is caused to collect the papers from official liquidator to seek
to leave the defend in the present suit. Hence, prayed to allow the
notice of motion.
2. The plaintiff filed reply to the notice of motion and has denied
the contents of the delay stated in the notice of motion.
3. Heard the learned Advocate Ms. Nupur Jalan for Defendant
Nos.3 and 4 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.
4. The defendants are seeking condonation of delay to file leave to
defend to the summons for judgment. The Advocate for the plaintiff
stated that the 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 motion for judgment. The roznama shows that the
plaintiff filed draft copy of summons for judgment on 15.09.2018, after
the defendant filed their appearance in the suit.
-- 2 of 4 --
NM.No.449/2019 : 3 : Summary Suit No.416/2017
5. The defendants have relied the xerox copy of order of Hon’ble
High Court at Calcutta in winding up petition i.e. order sheet to show
that it is the company under liquidation. The defendants desires to
seek leave to defend the summons for judgment. There is delay of 5
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.449 of 2019 is allowed on payment of
cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred 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, the delay
of 5 days is condoned to seek leave to defend the Summons for
Judgment.
3. Accordingly, Notice of Motion No.449 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.449/2019 : 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 11.58 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 --