Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: CNR No.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.990 OF 2018
IN
SUIT NO.8154 OF 2002
M/s. Hindustan Forging and Steel
Industries ...Plaintiff
V/s.
ISPL Industries ...Defendant.
And
ISPL Machine Builders Limited ...Respondent
Appearances:
Ld. Adv.Mr.Sohanraj Chopda for plaintiff.
Ld. Adv.Mr.Chanani for defendant
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI ABHIJEET A.
NANDGAONKAR
(C.R.No.20)
DATED : 27th June,2018
ORDER
By way of this chamber summons plaintiff prayed to add name of
respondent in the array of defendant by deleting name of original
defendant, with consequential amendments.
2. In supporting affidavit to this chamber summons of Shri
Mahendrakumar Agarwal, partner of plaintiff; plaintiff submitted that,
plaintiff have filed suit against defendant for recovery of Rs.9,05,514.52
with interest @ 18% per annum. Plaintiff had sold and supplied the
forged goods as per order of defendants. But defendant have failed to
pay the price of goods in spite of repeated demands. Learned counsel
Mr.S.Pathak contended that, defendant have been declared as Sick
MHCC01-007199-2018
-- 1 of 5 --
CS 990/2018 .. 2 .. Suit No.8154/2002
Industries and therefore, they are not liable to pay the said amount. A
meeting between plaintiff and defendant has been held in the office of
defendant's counsel and in that meeting learned Advocate for defendant
informed them that, defendant/company merged with ISPL Machine
Builders Limited, present respondent, and the liability of defendant has
been taken over by respondent. Learned Advocate for plaintiff has
informed plaintiff/company by letter dt.16.05.2018 that, scheme of
arrangement and demerger between ISPL Industries and ISPL Machine
Builders Limited have been sanctioned by the Board of Industrial and
Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) by an order dt.23.06.2014 in Case
No.275 of 2000 with order dt.05.09.2014 passed by Appellate
Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction in Appeal No.175
of 2014. The learned Advocate further informed that, the address of
ISPL Machine Builders Limited remains as address of original
defendant. Plaintiff submitted that, in view of scheme of arrangement
between defendant and respondent, the name of respondent is
necessary to be substituted to the place of original defendant, as
proposed defendant have taken over the liability and assets of original
defendant. Therefore, they prayed that, chamber summons be allowed
with permission of consequential amendments in the plaint.
3. After service of this chamber summons, learned counsel for
defendant Mr. Chanani appeared and strongly objected the chamber
summons, as written to the overleaf of chamber summons.
4. Heard both the side. Perused the record and submissions.
5. During the course of argument, learned Advocate for defendant
submitted that name of defendant on the plaint sought to be deleted
-- 2 of 5 --
CS 990/2018 .. 3 .. Suit No.8154/2002
and addition of para No.8 is but natural during the course of
proceedings. Therefore, that amendment be allowed. However, he
strongly opposed the consequential amendment in the plaint, as sought
in the prayer clause (3). Learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that,
incident took place about change of name of defendant during
pendency of the suit. Therefore, it is necessary to grant permission to
bring subsequent events on record and therefore, he prayed that,
chamber summons be allowed in the interest of justice.
6. After going through the submissions of both the sides, the reason
put forth is just and proper. The subsequent events need to be brought
on record for proper adjudication of the matter. Therefore, to
determine real question of controversy between the parties, the
proposed amendments in the plaint as sought by plaintiff by way of this
chamber summons need to be incorporated. The proposed amendment
will not change the nature of the suit. It is well within limitation. The
question of commencement of trial will not arise. Due diligence has
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 :
O R D E R
1. Chamber Summons No.990 of 2018 in Suit No.8154 of
2002 is made absolute.
2. Plaintiff to carry out proposed amendment within 14 days
from the date of this order.
3. After proposed amendment, copy of amended plaint be
served on the proposed defendant and copy of amended
plaint be placed on record.
4. No order as to costs.
( ABHIJEET A. NANDGAONKAR )
Judge, (C.R.No.20)
Dt.:27/06/2018 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
-- 3 of 5 --
CS 990/2018 .. 4 .. Suit No.8154/2002
Dictated on : 27.06.2018
Transcribed on : 27.06.2018
Signed on : 27.06.2018
kps/
-- 4 of 5 --
CS 990/2018 .. 5 .. Suit No.8154/2002
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
27.06.2018 at 4.30 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 27.06.2018
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 27.06.2018
Judgment/order uploaded on 27.06.2018
-- 5 of 5 --