Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1 Order in Ch/s 431 of 2022 in Suit stamp no. 3216 of 2022
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 431 of 2022
IN
S.C SUIT (STAMP) NO. 3216 OF 2022
CNR NO. : MHCC010031882022
M/s. Lifeline Hospital Management Services …. Plaintiff
Versus
1. Mr. Kirit J. Somaiya
2. TV9 Media Maharashtra Pvt Ltd ….Defendants
Appearance:
Mr. P. D. Prasad Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff.
Ms. Priya Vaity, Advocate for the Defendant No. 2.
CORAM : SMT. S.S. NAGUR,
JUDGE,
(C.R.NO.66)
DATE : 12.04.2022
ORAL ORDER
(Dictated in open Court)
1) The chamber summons is filed by plaintiff to delete the
name of TV9 Media Maharashtra Pvt Ltd from the name of defendant
No. 2 and in its place replace adding name Associated Broadcasting
company Pvt Ltd.
2) The chamber summons is supported by affidavit of partner
of plaintiff firm. The plaintiff stated that defendant No.2 has stated that
it is not a necessary party and is a subsidiary holding of company
“Associated Broadcasting company Pvt Ltd”. In order to avoid confusion
or ambiguity the plaintiff is desirous of adding the name of holding
company i.e. “Associated Broadcasting company Pvt Ltd”. Hence prayed
to allow the chamber summons. The defendant No.2 filed reply through
...1/
-- 1 of 4 --
2 Order in Ch/s 431 of 2022 in Suit stamp no.
3216 of 2022
affidavit of Sankaran Somu Pillai and objected on the ground that in the
affidavit in support of chamber summons the plaintiff does not desire to
delete the name of defendant No.2 but want to add “Associated
Broadcasting company Pvt Ltd” as defendant No. 3. The defendant No.2
is not a necessary party for adjudication of the dispute. Incase chamber
summons is rejected it would not cause any harm to defendant No. 2.
3) Heard Adv. Mr. P. D. Prasad Rao for plaintiff and Adv. Ms.
Priya Vaity for defendant No.2. Perused contents of chamber summons
and reply supported by affidavit.
4) Adv. Mr. P. D. Prasad Rao for plaintiff stated that
defendant No. 2 be deleted as in the prayer clause the plaintiff has
prayed to delete the name of defendant No.2. On the other hand Adv.
Ms. Priya Vaity has drawn my attention to affidavit of plaintiff in
support of chamber summons that plaintiff does not desire to delete
defendant No.2 but want to add defendant No. 3 “Associated
Broadcasting company Pvt Ltd”.
5) The prayer in the chamber summons is to delete the name
of defendant no. 2 and in its place add the name of “Associated
Broadcasting company Pvt Ltd”. Therefore no prejudice will be caused
to defendant No.2 as it will be deleted and in its place the name of
“Associated Broadcasting company Pvt Ltd” will be replaced as prayed
by the plaintiff in chamber summons. Hence pass following order :
ORDER
1. The Chamber Summons is allowed.
2. The prayer (a) of chamber summons is made
absolute.
...2/
-- 2 of 4 --
3 Order in Ch/s 431 of 2022 in Suit stamp no.
3216 of 2022
3. The plaintiff to carryout amendment within
limitation.
4. Accordingly, Chamber Summons is disposed of.
(SMT. S. S. NAGUR)
Date : 12/04/2022 Judge
City Civil Court,
Greater Mumbai.
Dictated and typed on : 12.04.2022
Pronounced on : 12.04.2022
Checked & Signed on : 12.04.2022
...3/
-- 3 of 4 --
4 Order in Ch/s 431 of 2022 in Suit stamp no.
3216 of 2022
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF TYPIST
13.04.2022 11.10 a.m. Mr. Mohit M. Patange
Name of the Judge HHJ Smt. S.S. Nagur
(C.R.NO.66)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
12.04.2022
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 12.04.2022
Judgment/order uploaded on 13.04.2022
...4/
-- 4 of 4 --