Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: :1: N.M. No.764/2019 in Sum. Suit No.601/2018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 764 OF 2019
CNR NO.: MHCC010020062019
IN
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.260 OF 2018
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 601 OF 2018
Netflex (India) Pvt. Ltd. ...Plaintiff
Versus
M/s. Ten on Ten …Defendant
Appearances:
Advocate Mr.Navid Memon for the plaintiff.
Advocate Mr. Ankush Bansal for defendant.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
S.P. AGARWAL
(C.R.NO.28)
DATED : 3rd APRIL, 2019.
ORAL ORDER
1. Defendant has stated that the proprietor of defendant is located
in America and she is required continuously travelling across America
and other countries for business commitment. Due to such situation, she
was not communicated the suit copy and contents and therefore,
Affidavit in reply to Summons for Judgment was not filed within time.
It is further stated that after fulfilling the procedure of embassy, the
Power of Attorney was received from plaintiff. It is further stated that
the applicant was suffering serious health problem due to which
applicant was suggested complete bed rest. Defendant has further
stated that delay is not intentional. It is further stated that defendant is
-- 1 of 3 --
:2: N.M. No.764/2019 in Sum. Suit No.601/2018
having good case on merit.
2. Plaintiff has filed reply to this Notice of Motion and stated that
defendant has failed to make out a clear case regarding sufficient cause
for failure to apply for leave to defend within time. Plaintiff has further
stated that the Medical Paper Shows that the defendant was taking
treatment and suffering from diabetes and vertigo and was advised to
take rest at home. But the defendant should have been more cautious
and instructed lawyer to file leave to defend within time and prayed for
rejection of Notice of Motion.
3. It is pertinent to note that the proprietor of defendant situated in
America. Therefore, it is probable that time is spent in procedure of
executing Power of Attorney and sending it. It is probable that due to
health problem defendant could not promptly make arrangement to file
reply within time. Hence, it appears delay on part of defendant is not
intentional. But for delay caused by defendant, plaintiff should not be
required to suffer. Hence, it will be proper in the interest of justice to
allow Notice of Motion subject to cost. Hence, following order :
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No. 764 of 2019 is allowed subject to cost of
Rs.7,000/ to be given by defendant to plaintiff.
2. Notice of Motion No. 764 of 2019 stands disposed of.
(S.P. AGARWAL)
Judge,
Date: 03.04.2019. City Civil Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 03.04.2019
Transcribed on : 03.04.2019
Signed on : 03.04.2019
-- 2 of 3 --
:3: N.M. No.764/2019 in Sum. Suit No.601/2018
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
05.04.2019 At 2:00 p.m. Mr. Subhash Sukhdeo Poul
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ Ms. S.P. Agarwal
(C.R.NO.28)
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
03.04.2019
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 03.04.2019
Judgment/Order uploaded on 05.04.2019
-- 3 of 3 --