Final Order 2

Order Details: Miscellaneous appeal
Pdf Text: 1
Misc. Appn. no.117 of 2019 in
Suit No. 2395 of 2011
MHCC010101772019
Presented on : 05-10-2019
Registered on : 05-10-2019
Decided on : 16-10-2023
Duration : 4-Y, 00-M,11-D
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
MISC. APPLICATION NO.117 of 2019
IN
SUIT NO. 2395 OF 2011
Shishir B. Nevatia & Ors. …Applicants/
Original Defendants
Versus
Elegant Industries Pvt. Ltd. ....Original
Plaintiffs.
CORAM: HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. VIRENDRA D. KEDAR
(C.R. NO.1)
DATE : 16th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
: Appearances: -
Adv. Karl Shroff a/w Megha Vijan i/b Bali associates for defendants
None for the plaintiffs.
(ORAL ORDER)
The defendant no.1 has filed the present Misc. Application
for condoning delay of 118 days caused in filing Review petition.
-- 1 of 5 --
2
Misc. Appn. no.117 of 2019 in
Suit No. 2395 of 2011
2. It is submitted that on 18/06/2014, Mr. Dileep Nevatia
filed his memo of appearance (Exh.58) after taking no objection from
the advocates on record of the plaintiff’s company. It was opposed by
the defendants. This Court
vide order dated 19/08/2016 directed Mr.
Nevatia to produce documents in support of his memo of appearance.
On 06/10/2016, Mr. Nevatia filed purported Board Resolution dated
12/10/2010 and certain other documents. Meanwhile, on 02/07/2018
defendants have taken out draft notice of motion for rejecting memo of
appearance filed by Mr. Nevatia. On 17/10/2018, this Court after
hearing both the sides adjourned the matter for order to 03/11/2018,
to decide the issue as to whether the documents filed by the plaintiffs
vide Exh.61 are sufficient compliance of order dated 19/08/2016 and
not for order on draft notice of motion. However, on 03/11/2018 this
Court instead of deciding said issue rejected the draft notice of motion.
Thus, defendants have taken out Review petition to recall order dated
03/11/2018, but delay of 118 days has been caused in taking out the
same. Therefore, the present Misc. application for condoning the delay.
3. It is further contended that after passing of order dated
03/11/2018, defendants came to know about the proceedings of L.E. &
C suit no. 21/26 of 2005 and suit no. 6814 of 2003 wherein Mr. Dileep
Nevatia is prohibited from entering into matter as he allegedly claimed
to be director of the plaintiff’s company and that he was authorized by
Power of Attorney to appear in its behalf and to represent the same. It
was further observed by the Court that Mr. Dileep Nevatia in person
submitted the he has no further authority. Mr. Dileep Nevatia has
challenged the said order before the Hon’ble High Court by way of Writ
Petition no. 12696 of 2017. However,
vide an order dated 30/11/2018
-- 2 of 5 --
3
Misc. Appn. no.117 of 2019 in
Suit No. 2395 of 2011
the Hon’ble High Court refused to interfere with the said orders. In
view of this fact and for want of knowledge of about said orders
applicants could not filed revision within time. Therefore, delay of 118
days has been caused. Hence it may kindly be condoned.
4. In spite of an opportunity, the plaintiffs failed to file reply,
and the matter proceeded without reply of the plaintiffs.
5. Heard and perused the record.
6. The learned advocate for applicants relied on the authority
reported in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and
another vs. Mst. Katiji and others, AIR 1987 SC 1353. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that,
“Court should adopt liberal approach while
dealing with the application for condoning of delay.”
7. Herein, it is to be seen that the main grievance of the
applicant that, after hearing both the sides, my learned predecessor-in-
Court on 17/10/2018 adjourned the matter to 03/11/2018 to deice
issue as to whether the documents filed
vide Exh.61 are sufficient
compliance of the order dated 19/08/2016 below Exh.58. It further
reveals that on 03/11/2018 my learned predecessor in Court disposed
of draft notice of motion filed by the defendants. Thereafter, on
22/02/2019 the defendants agitated the question of appearance of Mr.
Dileep Nevatia on behalf of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the defendants
have taken out draft notice of motion on 17/10/2019. It means after
rejection of draft notice of motion on 03/11/2018, defendants appeared
in the matter regularly on 22/02/2019, 25/03/2019, 16/04/2019,
12/06/2019, 06/07/2019, 06/08/2019, 04/09/2019 and 05/10/2019.
-- 3 of 5 --
4
Misc. Appn. no.117 of 2019 in
Suit No. 2395 of 2011
No sufficient explanation provided by defendants as to why they have
not taken out the Review Petition for challenging order dated
03/11/2018 within time. No due diligence shown. No sufficient
explanation provided by defendants for causing delay. Hence, I am of
the view that no case made out by applicants/defendants for condoning
delay of 118 days cause in filing the Review petition, hence the
following order.
ORDER
Misc. Application no. 117 of 2019 stands rejected.
Misc. Application stands disposed off accordingly.
(Virendra D. Kedar )
Judge,
Date: 16.10.2023. City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai.
(C R No.1)
Dictated on :16.10.2023
Transcribed on :19.10.2023
Checked & Signed on :23.10.2023
-- 4 of 5 --
5
Misc. Appn. no.117 of 2019 in
Suit No. 2395 of 2011
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE: 16.10.2023 NAME OF STENOGRAPHER(GI)
Mrs. V. V. Mhatre
TIME:
Name of the Judge (With Court
room no.)
Shri Virendra D. Kedar
(Court Room No.01)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGEMENT/ORDER
16.10.2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
23.10.2023
JUDGEMENT/ORDER uploaded on 23.10.2023
-- 5 of 5 --