Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM In SC 1013/16 Oral Order 1
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 930 OF 2018
(CNR NO.MHCC010031842018)
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.1013 OF 2016
Ms.Seema Bablani
Age 54 years, Occ: Business
Indian Inhabitant of Bombay carrying on
Business as a sole proprietress in the name
And Style of Dutch Divident
Having address at 201, Hammersmith
Industrial Estate, Sitladevi Temple Road,
Mahim, Mumbai400016. ...Plaintiff
V/s
1. Glodyne Ventures And Holding Pvt.Ltd.
A company registered under
Indian Companies Act, 1956,
801, Balarama Bldg, Bandra Kurla
Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051.
2. Mr.Annand Sarnaaik
Indian Inhabitant of Bombay
Adult, Occ: Not known
3. Ms.Divvyani Annand Sarnaaik
Indian Inhabitant of Bombay,
Adult, Occ:Not Known
Both having their address at
402, Jairaj CHS Ltd.,
Opp.Income Tax Bldg.,
BandraKurla Complex,
Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051.
-- 1 of 5 --
NM In SC 1013/16 Oral Order 2
4. Messers Glodyne Technoserve Ltd.,
A company registered under
Indian Companies Act, 1956,
Having its registered address at
801 Balarama Building,
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East), Mumbai400051. ..Defendants
Coram : His Honour Judge Shri M.M.Umar
(C.R. No.28)
Dated : 06/07/2018
Adv. Mr.Rawal for plaintiff.
Adv. Mr.Kapadia for defendant.
ORDER BELOW NOTICE OF MOTION NO.930/18
1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the defendants for
condoning the delay of 51 days caused in filing of the reply to the
Summons for Judgment.
2. The plaintiff has resisted to the said application by filing reply.
3. Heard. The learned advocate for the defendants has submitted
that the Summons for Judgment was served upon the advocate for
defendants on 05/01/2018 and reply was also ready but due to
inadvertance of the office staff of the defendant there was delay in
sending the same to the advocate. Hence, it was not filed within time. It
is submitted that the delay caused is not intentional or deliberate. It is
-- 2 of 5 --
NM In SC 1013/16 Oral Order 3
submitted that the defendant has very good case on merits and if the
reply to the summons for judgment is not taken on record serious
prejudice would cause to the defendant, therefore it is requested to
make Notice of Motion absolute.
4. Per contra, the learned advocate for plaintiff has submitted
that the defendants have not filed their reply to Summons for
Judgment within 10 days from the date of service with an intention to
delay the passing of decree in the suit. It is submitted that no sufficient
cause is shown for condonation of delay in filing reply to Summons for
Judgment. Lastly, it is requested to dismiss the Notice of Motion with
costs.
5. I have duly considered the above submissions of both the
sides, so also, I have gone carefully through the case papers. It appears
that the Summons for Judgment was served upon the defendants on
05/01/2018 and thereafter they filed the said Notice of Motion on
26/2/2018 which clearly shows that the said reply is not filed within 10
days from the service of Summons for Judgment upon the defendants.
It appears that as per the contention of the defendants their reply was
ready but due to some inadvertance from their office bearers the said
reply was not sent to their advocate within time. Therefore, it was not
filed within time. From the conduct of defendants, it appears that they
immediately approached to the Court and has filed the present Notice
of Motion. It appears that the defendants have shown the sufficient
-- 3 of 5 --
NM In SC 1013/16 Oral Order 4
cause not for filing the reply within stipulated time. It appears that the
delay is not caused due to inaction or malafide on the part of
defendants. Considering the reason and circumstances on record in my
opinion, this is a fit case in which the discretionary power can be
exercised in favour of the defendants for condoning the delay. Hence,
the delay caused in filing the reply to the Summons for Judgment is
liable to be condoned, in the larger interest of justice. In the result,
following order:
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion no.930/18 is made absolute .
2. The delay caused for filing the reply to the Summons for Judgment
is hereby condoned and defendant is allowed to file the reply on
payment of cost of Rs.2,500/ payable to the plaintiff on or before next
date.
3. The payment of cost is condition precedent for condoning the
delay.
(M.M.UMAR)
Judge,
06/07/2018 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Date of Dictation : 06/7/18.
Date of Transcription : 06/7/18.
Date of signature : 16/7/18
-- 4 of 5 --
NM In SC 1013/16 Oral Order 5
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
17.07.18 12.00 a.m. Mrs.Jyoti R.Mane
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri MM Umar (CR
No.28)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgement/Order.
06.07.18
Judgement/order signed by P.O on 16.07.18
Judgement/order uploaded on 17.07.18
-- 5 of 5 --