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

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1078

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ABHAY AHUJA
Pfizer Limited – Appellant
Versus
Shivalik Exports Corporation – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Plaintiff :Mr. Kunal Dwarkadas alongwith Ms. Reha Parkash, Ms. Kshyama Daniel instructed by Crawford Bayley & Co., Advocate
For the Defendant :Mr. Anirudh Hariyani alongwith Mr. Niket Jani instructed by Jani & Parekh, Advocate

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

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?


Table of Content
1. plaintiff's attempt to amend suit due to deceased defendants (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. opposition towards impleading new defendants without notice (Para 8 , 16 , 17)
3. analysis of substitution process under cpc (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 18 , 20)
4. guidelines on abatement and substitution procedures (Para 13 , 15 , 22)
5. court order related to amendments and notification to legal representatives. (Para 19)
6. final order regarding amendments and notifications (Para 24 , 25)

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 Defen

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