Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ABHAY AHUJA
Pfizer Limited – Appellant
Versus
Shivalik Exports Corporation – Respondent
Question 1? How to substitute the legal representatives of deceased defendants under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC within the stipulated limitation periods? Question 2? What is the procedure and requirement for notifying proposed legal representatives before substituting or setting aside abatement? Question 3? What are the consequences and conditions for abatement when substitution is not filed within 90 days and how can abatement be set aside?
Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)
ORDER. :
ABHAY AHUJA, J.
1. The Applicant/Plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, an existing company under the Companies Act, 1956 and 2013. The Plaintiff is a company stated to be engaged in the manufacture and marketing of pharmaceuticals and consumer healthcare products.
2. The Defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm whose services were requisitioned by the Plaintiff under the carrying and forwarding agreement dated 28th September, 2010 and the amendment thereto dated 2nd April, 2012 (the “CFA Agreement”). The Defendants No. 2 to 6 are the partners of the Defendant No. 1 firm.
3. The Applicant/Plaintiff by way of the suit is seeking a money decree against the Defendants for an amount of Rs. 8,10,19,029/- together with interest on the basis that the Defendants have inter alia breached the terms of the CFA Agreement., which breaches have allegedly resulted in losses to the Plaintiff.
4. It has been submitted that, unknown to the Applicant, during the pendency of the suit, on 31st March, 2016 the Defendant No. 1 firm was dissolved, on 6th October, 2021, the Defendant No. 2 passed away, and on 17th March, 2022, the Defendant No. 6 passed away. It is the c
Substitution of deceased parties in civil proceedings requires adherence to strict timelines under the CPC and affording notice to legal representatives, failing which valuable rights may be compromi....
Procedural laws must be interpreted liberally to ensure substantive rights are upheld in the context of setting aside abatement due to a party's death, emphasizing justice over technicalities.
Abatement of an appeal under CPC is not automatic upon death if the right to sue survives; presence of a legal representative allows continuation despite procedural delays.
The main legal point established is that the timely filing of applications under Order XXII Rule 4 and Rule 9 of the CPC is crucial, and delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause. Negligence ....
Counsel must notify the court of a party's death and provide legal heirs' details; failure leads to abatement under Order 22 Rule 10A of CPC.
Delay/Laches/ limitation - Sufficient cause – Meaning of - The expression ‘sufficient cause’ within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code or any other similar provision s....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
