Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: CNR No.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.683 OF 2018
IN
SUIT NO.4121 OF 2013
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur ...Plaintiff.
V/s.
Mukesh Ramcharan Gupta ...Defendant
Appearances:
Ld. Adv Mr.Kedar Patil for plaintiff.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI ABHIJEET A.
NANDGAONKAR
(C.R.No.20)
DATED : 12th July,2018
ORDER
By way of this chamber summons plaintiff prayed to substitute
the name of proposed plaintiff – State Bank of India, in the place of
original plaintiff with other consequential reliefs.
2. In supporting affidavit of Mr.Shyam Prasad Shastry, Chief
Manager and authorized officer of plaintiff bank submitted that, present
suit was filed by State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur against defendants for
recovery of Rs.9,00,306/. It is further submitted that, Government of
Indian issued notification No.REGD NO.D.L.33004/99 (No.128) dated
22.02.2017 and as per this notification State Bank of Bikaner and
Jaipur has been acquired by State Bank of India under Section 35 of
State Bank of India Act,1955 with effect from 01.04.2017. Due to this
merger/takeover the entire share capital of the Transferor Bank (State
MHCC01-004640-2018
-- 1 of 4 --
CS 683/2018 .. 2 .. Suit No.4121/2013
Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur) held by Transferee Bank (State Bank of
India) on the effective date. Plaintiff further submitted that, by virtue of
above notification all the legal proceedings pending or existing
immediately before the effective date before any court or tribunal or
any authority by or against the transferor bank may be, from the
effective date, continued by transferee bank. Therefore, plaintiff prayed
to allow chamber summons and change the name of plaintiff in title
clause of plaint, in view of the notification and merger of original
plaintiff bank in State Bank of India.
3. After service of this chamber summons, none appeared for
defendant to contest this chamber summons.
4. Heard learned Advocate for plaintiff. Perused the record.
5. After going through the notification filed it is clear that, original
plaintiff bank has been merged into State Bank of India and ceased its
activity from the effective date. By virtue of this notification the
proposed plaintiff is empowered to continue the legal proceedings, by
or against the original plaintiff bank. Therefore, it is necessary to
substitute the name of proposed plaintiff at the place of original
plaintiff in the plaint. It will not change the nature of suit nor claim.
But present amendment is necessary to resolve all the questions and
controversy involved between the parties. It is well within limitation.
The question of commencement of trial will not arise. Due diligence is
shown. Therefore, proposed amendment needs to be incorporated in
the plaint. In the circumstances, it will be proper to direct the parties to
bear their costs and hence, I pass the following order :
-- 2 of 4 --
CS 683/2018 .. 3 .. Suit No.4121/2013
O R D E R
1. Chamber Summons No.683 of 2018 in Suit No.4121 of
2013 is made absolute.
2. Plaintiff to carry out proposed amendment as per schedule
attached to the chamber summons, within 14 days from the
date of this order.
3. After proposed amendment, copy of amended plaint be
served on the defendant and copy of amended plaint be
placed on record.
4. Parties to bear their costs.
( ABHIJEET A. NANDGAONKAR )
Judge, (C.R.No.20)
Dt.:12/07/2018 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 12.07.2018
Transcribed on : 12.07.2018
Signed on : 12.07.2018
kps/
-- 3 of 4 --
CS 683/2018 .. 4 .. Suit No.4121/2013
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
13.07.2018 at 2.58 p.m
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
(KISHOR PRAKASH SHERWADE)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI A.A.
NANDGAONKAR
(COURT ROOM NO.20)
Date of pronouncement of judgment/order 12.07.2018
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 12.07.2018
Judgment/order uploaded on 13.07.2018
-- 4 of 4 --