Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1 CS No.17918 in SU 771198
CNR No. MHCC010014122018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.179 OF 2018
IN
SUIT NO.7711 OF 1998
(HIGH COURT SUIT NO.739 OF 1998)
Harsha Dedhia
Through C.A. Tilak Dedhia ...Plaintiff.
V/s.
P.S. Investments and Ors. ...Defendants.
Appearances:
Ld. Adv Jayraj for plaintiff.
Ld. Adv Sheela Mistry for defendants
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. KALPANA S. HORE
COURT ROOM NO.14
DATED : 17th SEPTEMBER, 2018.
ORDER
1. This chamber summons has taken by the plaintiff to carry out
amendment in plaint and prayer.
In short, plaintiff case is as under :
2. Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs.77,85,646/ with future
interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
3. Plaintiff's contention is that plaintiff is a Proprietress of Paras
Financial Consultants. Defendant no.1 is proprietorship firm of
-- 1 of 4 --
2 CS No.17918 in SU 771198
defendant no.2. Defendant nos.3 and 4 are mother and father of
defendant no.2.
4. Plaintiff's contention is that defendant no.2 approached to
Tilakbhai, who was Manager and represented as authorized subbroker
in B.S.E., and by and sell shares and debentures on commission basis.
Plaintiff's contention is that relying on his representation plaintiff had
regular business with him. Plaintiff's contention is that defendant no.2
had issued contracts for the transaction done for sale and purchases,
and bills for the deliveries given and payment received by him. The
plaintiff's contention is that since beginning, almost plaintiff or the
associates has to recover some money from defendant as sufficient
balance was lying with him. Plaintiff's contention is that defendant no.2
had asked some shares through Tilakbhai as loan in around October /
November, 1993 which he assured to return within 34 months keeping
faith on his false promises and assurances, Tilakbhai handed over the
shares. Plaintiff's contention is that defendant no.2 had given two
cheques as security for the shares given as loan. Plaintiff's contention is
that defendant no.2 had agreed and confirmed as the payment will be
made for the difference of rates, dividend, rights, bonus etc. from the
date of purchases made as per BSE rules and regulations, if he is unable
to give the deliveries of purchased shares. However, defendant no.2 did
not give the amount. Hence, plaintiff filed suit for recovery of amount.
Initially, plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs.78,10,646/. However,
after amendment amount is claimed of Rs.77,85,646/.
5. Plaintiff by way of chamber summons intend to add para
no.27(a) and relief clause para no.1(a). Plaintiff's contention is that on
the basis of basic share trading consequence is depends on shares
-- 2 of 4 --
3 CS No.17918 in SU 771198
trading and the price value is changeable according to the quantity and
eligibility of rights, as per companies through BSE / by Government
fixed time to time so, he wants to add para no.27(a) and claiming an
amount of Rs.77,85,646/.
6. Defendant by filing say objected the application and contending
that it is a matter of record that the facts alleged on the basis of which
the plaintiff seeks to amend the plaint were always known to the
plaintiff. Despite the same, the plaintiff failed to plead the said alleged
facts in the plaint as originally filed in the year 1998. It further
contended that plaintiff seeks to introduce a new prayer, the basis of
which was never the case of the plaintiff. As such, the present chamber
summons is nothing but complete afterthought and is liable to be
rejected.
7. Defendant contention is that plaintiff is to file suit on the basis of
allegation made in the present chamber summons is hopelessly barred
by limitation. With this, prayed for dismissal of chamber summons.
8. Plaintiff filed rejoinder.
9. I have heard both the parties.
10. Plaintiff by proposed amendment only given the clarification how
the value of shares are calculated. The plaintiff in the plaint contended
that how the value of shares are changed so, I find that if proposed
amendment is allowed, nature of suit is not be changed hence,
amendment is allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following
order :
-- 3 of 4 --
4 CS No.17918 in SU 771198
O R D E R
1. Chamber Summons No.179 of 2018 is allowed.
2. Plaintiff is directed to carry out amendment with 14 days.
3. Chamber Summons No.179 of 2018 stands disposed of
accordingly.
( KALPANA S. HORE )
Judge,
Dated : 17/09/2018 City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
Dictated on : 17/09/2018
Transcribed on : 17/09/2018
Signed on : 17/09/2018
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date Upload Time Name of Stenographer
19.09.2018 12.52 p.m. ARUN ANNAMALAI MUDALIYAR
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ Smt. K. S. HORE (CR 14)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
17.09.2018
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by
P.O. on
17.09.2018
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded
on
19.09.2018
-- 4 of 4 --