Back
NAVIN CHAWLA
BALCORP LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
GANGA RAM BRIJ MOHAN – Respondent
Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)
JUDGMENT :
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
I.A. Nos. 1953/2020, 9616/2023, 37751/2024
1. By the present Judgment, this Court shall dispose of the above applications.
2. I.A. 1953/2020 has been filed by the plaintiff praying for a direction to take off the record the written statement filed by Mr. Ankit Goel, and pass a Judgment against the defendant as arrayed.
3. On the other hand, I.A. 9616/2023 has been filed by Mr. Ankit Goel claiming therein that as the defendant has been arrayed in the name of a proprietorship concern, which is not a legal entity, the Suit be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’) as being barred by law.
4. I.A. 37751/2024 has also been filed by Mr. Ankit Goel seeking permission of this Court for Mr. Brij Mohan Goel to endorse the written statement filed on behalf of M/s Ganga Ram Brij Mohan, by affixing the signatures of Mr. Brij Mohan Goel thereon and to permit Mr. Brij Mohan Goel to file a separate affidavit/statement of truth adopting the stand of M/s Ganga Ram Brij Mohan as taken in the written statement.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF IN THE SUIT:
5. This Suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of the alleged loss suffe
A suit against a proprietorship concern is maintainable, and technical defects in naming parties should not defeat substantive rights.
A sole proprietorship cannot be prosecuted under Section 141 of the N.I. Act unless the proprietor is named in the complaint; the complaint was also quashed for being premature.
Substitution of a plaintiff after limitation has expired is valid only from the date of substitution, not retrospectively.
The amendments sought to the plaint were imperative for proper adjudication of the case and did not fundamentally change the nature of the case. The Court emphasized the applicability of Order XXX Ru....
The amended provision allowing 120 days to file a written statement under the CPC is applicable, and dismissal on procedural grounds without considering such amendment is unreasonable.
The court established the discretion of the Commercial Court in accepting written statements in transferred suits and highlighted the applicability of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 to suits filed b....
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
