S.J.KATHAWALLA
Rohit A. Kapadia – Appellant
Versus
Perviz J. Modi – Respondent
1. The Plaintiffs have filed the above suit against the Defendant for a declaration that the concluded contract in terms of the unsigned MOU being Exhibit-O to the Plaint, arrived at between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant is valid, subsisting and binding on the Defendant and the Defendant be ordered and decreed to specifically perform the said concluded contract and for the said purpose to do all acts, deeds and things and execute all necessary documents, papers, applications, etc.
2. In September 2006, the Defendant took out Notice of Motion No. 3818 of 2006 to condone the delay of 465 days in filing the written statement. By an order dated 31st March 2008, the said Notice of Motion was allowed by this Court (Coram: S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) and the written statement dated 28th September 2006 was taken on record.
3. From the roznama it appears that after the written statement dated 28th September2006 was taken on record, the suit came up on Board only on 13th February 2012, when issues were framed in the above suit; the Plaintiffs were directed to file their affidavit of evidence, affidavit of documents along with compilation of documents on or before 27th February 2012; t
Vidyabai and others Vs. Padmalatha and another, 2009(1) ALL MR 471 (S.C.) : (2009) 2 SCC 409. 6
Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey Vs. Swami Keshavprakash, 2007 ALL SCR 734 : (2006) 12 SCC 1 6, 14
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Union of India and another, 2012 ALL SCR 2191 : AIR 2012 SC 2518. 11
Usha Balashaheb Swami and others Vs. Kiran Appaso Swami and others
K. Narendra Vs. Rivera Apartments (P) Ltd., 1999 (5) SCC 77. 13
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.