Skip to main content
NOTICE OF MOTION

Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals LimitedVsP.S. Enterprises

CNR MHCC01008924201928-COURT 28 ADD SESSIONS JUDGE
City Civil Court, Mumbai
Mumbai · Maharashtra (MH)
CASE DISPOSED
Uncontested--OTHER
Decision Date: 24th March 2021

TrustJury record updated 22 Sept 2026

Case Overview

Registration Number
103278/2019
Registration Date
28 Aug 2019

Advocates

2

For Petitioner

For Respondent

Parties

2

Acts & Sections

1
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act · Sec 9

Case History / Proceedings

Case History
Date: 09-09-2019
Business: Adv. Bhole for plaintiff present.
None present for deft.
Adjd. to 02.11.2019 for reply of nm
Next Purpose: NOTICE OF MOTION
Next Hearing Date: 02-11-2019

Date: 02-11-2019
Business: Adv Bhutta for defendant present.
Adv Bhole for plaintiff present.
Register NM NO.3278/19 @ affidavit tendered by advocate for defendant. Service affidavit filed by advocate for defendant.
On oral request of advocate for plaintiff, matter is adjourned to 24.01.2020 for NM hearing.
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 24-01-2020

Date: 24-01-2020
Business: Adv. Nilesh Bhole for plaintiff.
Adv. Bhanushali for defendant.
Adv. for plaintiff filed reply to NM 3278/19.
Adjd for rejoinder to NM to 09.03.2020.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 09-03-2020

Date: 09-03-2020
Business: Adv. Nilesh Bhole for plaintiff
Adv. Bhanushali for defendant filed rejoinder to NM 3278/19.
Adjd for NM Hearing to 08-07-2020
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 08-07-2020

Date: 08-07-2020
Reason For Adjournment: National Lock Down
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 23-09-2020

Date: 23-09-2020
Business: Due to heavy rain declare holiday hence matter adjd to 26-09-2020
Reason For Adjournment: Adjourned due to Covid-19
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 26-09-2020

Date: 26-09-2020
Reason For Adjournment: Adjourned due to Covid-19
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 17-12-2020

Date: 17-12-2020
Business: P.O. Is on leave
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 15-03-2021

Date: 15-03-2021
Business: Adv. Nilesh Bhole for plaintiff present.
None for defendant.
Heard the arguments on behalf of plaintiff.
Adjd to 24/03/2021 for hearing.
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 24-03-2021

Date: 24-03-2021
Business: Adv. Bhole for plaintiff
None for defendant
ORDER-
1. Heard the Ld advocate on behalf of the plaintiff. None appeared on behalf of the defendant to advance arguments. By present Notice of Motion the defendant requested to condone the delay of 79 days to file the written statement. The Ld advocate on behalf of the plaintiff rightly objected contending that this is summary suit and therefore written statement cannot be filed at this stage. However, he also argued that the defendant ought to have filed notice of motion for condoning delay caused to appear in the matter as the defendant did not appear within stipulated period of 10 days from the date of service of summons for appearance.
As already noted this is summary suit and written statement cannot be permitted unless leave to defend is granted to the defendant. Yet the summons for judgment has not been filed and heard. Yet the question whether leave to defend can be granted to the defendant is not decided. The matter has not reached that stage. Therefore there is no question to condone the delay for filing written statement and accept the written statement on record. Resultantly, the notice of motion is liable to be rejected. However, at the same time it has to be made clear as to whether the defendant appeared within the stipulated period of 10 days. Admittedly summons was served on the defendant on 29-04-2019. The defendant was under obligation to appear within 10 days. However, at the same time it must be noted that the summer vacation started to the court on 06.05.2019. As such the 10th day came in the summer vacation. It cannot be expected from the defendant to appear in the summer vacation. On the first opening day after summer vacation i.e. on 3rd June 2019 the defendant appeared before the court by filing vakalatnama. Resultantly, the appearance of the defendant must be deemed to be within stipulated period. Therefore, the contention that the defendant did not appear within stipulated period cannot be accepted in the peculiar circumstances. The vakalatnama of defendant as filed on 03.06.2019 is accepted on record. Hence, the notice of motion is rejected. However, it is clarified that the appearance and vakalatnama of the defendant is within stipulated time and it is accepted on record.
Nature Of Disposal: OTHER
Disposal Date: 24-03-2021

Additional Case Details

Additional Case Details
Filing Number: 109520/2019
Filing Date: 28-08-2019
First Hearing Date: 09th September 2019
Decision Date: 24th March 2021
Court Number And Judge: 28-COURT 28 ADD SESSIONS JUDGE

Orders

1
Final Order 1Full order available
24 Mar 2021

Order Details: Notice of Motion Pdf Text: Back Daily Status IN THE COURT OF :COURT 28 ADD SESSIONS JUDGE Case No. :NOTICE OF MOTION/0103278/2019 Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs P.S. Enterprises Date : 24-03-2021 Business : Adv. Bhole for plaintiff None for defendant ORDER- 1. Heard the Ld advocate on behalf of the plaintiff. None appeared on behalf of the defendant to advance arguments. By present Notice of Motion the defendant requested to condone the delay of 79 days to file…

Read Full Order

TrustJury presents public court-record information for legal discovery and reference. Record availability and detail can vary by source and case.