SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Bom) 144

D.G.KARNIK
RELIANCE CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD – Appellant
Versus
METRO PALUTAN INVESTMENT – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
M.L.PALAN

( 1 ) THIS Chamber Summons is taken out by the plaintiff seeking exemption, under Order 22 Rule 4 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the CPC), from substituting or bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 4 and also for an amendment of the plaint to change the name of the plaintiff.

( 2 ) AS regards the prayer for amendment of name the plaintiff has pleaded that the name of the plaintiff company was changed subsequent to the filing of the suit. A copy of the fresh certificate of incorporation issued by the Deputy registrar of the Companies showing the amendment in the name is annexed to the Chamber Summons. In the circumstances I see no reason for not allowing the amendment of the plaint to change the name of the plaintiff.

( 3 ) AS regards the prayer for exemption from bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 4, it may be noted that the defendant No. 4 died prior to 2nd September, 2005. On two occasions. e. , on 2nd september and 16th December, 2005 time was sought by the plaintiff for bringing the legal representative/s of the deceased defendant No. 4 on record. As no steps were taken even thereafter f








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top