Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J
Amines And Plasticizers Limited – Appellant
Versus
APL Holdings and Investments Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writs challenge denial of witness recall. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. license expired; alterations defense raised. (Para 2 , 3 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. inadvertence justifies additional evidence recall. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. applications are delay tactics post-opportunity. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. no due diligence pleaded despite ample time. (Para 10 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. o.18 r.17 discretionary, not for lacunae. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. cannot reopen for available evidence bills. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 8. velusamy requires bona fide valid reasons. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 9. recall sparingly with due diligence essential. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 10. delaying suits abuses court process. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 11. petitions dismissed; suits expedited. (Para 32 , 33) |
Judgment :
1) These two petitions are filed by the Petitioner-licensee challenging the orders dated 3 January 2026 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court rejecting the Revisions filed against the orders passed by the Trial Court on 20 September 2025 by which applications filed by the Petitioner seeking permission to lead further evidence of D.W.1 and for production of additional documents were rejected by the Trial Court. The orders passed by the
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
