(Ori v. M/s Bhagwati agro & Dairy Farm, through partners deft no.1 and 2
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SUNIL P DESHMUKH
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. On the face of the reasons given for rejection of the applications, the orders impugned herein appear to be without appreciating that corporate bodies function through human beings and are too technical. As such, impugned orders are unsustainable and do not sub-serve the cause…
Judgment
Cause title
PETITIONER (Ori. Plaintiff)
The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., A Banking company incorporated under the Mewar Companies Act, 1942 and now deemed to have been incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at C.T. Udaipura and Central Office at Jaipur and Branch inter alia at Aurangabad, through its Branch Manager, Aurangabad
3.
VERSUS
M/s Bhagwati agro & Dairy Farm, through partners deft no.1 and 2 sur.no.15, Gopalpur, Post Naregaon, Dist. Aurangabad Through partner of Santhosh Ramnath Lokhotiya, (Respondent No.2) Santhosh Ramnath Lokhotiya, Age : 40 yrs, Occ. Business, R/o Municipal No.2-16-92, Mathura Bhawan, Diwan Deodi, Aurangabad Bansilal Khemchand Bhurewale, AGe : 50 yrs, Occ. Business, R/o House No.5-23-60/1, Dalalwadi, Aurangabad (Petition is dismissed as against Respondent No.3 as per order dated 22.1.2010) 2 W.P. No.8326/2009
5. Subhash Radhakrishna Malani, Age : 50 yrs., Occ. Business, R/o C/o Kamdhenu Corner, Supari Hanuman Road, Aurangabad Dhannalal Girdharilal Bhurewale, Age : 40 yrs., Occ. Business, R/o Municipal No.4-19-83/5, Khokadpura, Jaripura, Aurangabad
6. The State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENTS
Mr D.L. Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner;
Mr A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for respondents no.1 & 2; (Petition is dismissed as against respondent no.3 as per order dated 22.1.2010);
Mr Pratik P. Kothari, Advocate for respondent no.4
Mr K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for respondent no.6
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 22nd February, 2012
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of parties.
The petitioner questions the legality and propriety of the orders passed on 26th August, 2009 and 14th September, 2008, on Exhs. 58 an 59, respectively, whereunder the requests of plaintiff to 3 W.P. No.8326/2009 adjourn the dates for adducing evidence, due to illness of the incumbent Officer and his subsequent transfer out of the State, had been turned down by the Court below, primarily for the reason that the plaintiff is a corporate body and as such the ground of illness as also reason of transfer of the concerned Officer out of the State would not be available for postponement of recording of evidence.
On the face of the reasons given for rejection of the applications, the orders impugned herein appear to be without appreciating that corporate bodies function through human beings and are too technical. As such, impugned orders are unsustainable and do not sub-serve the cause of justice. In view of this and in the interest of justice, the impugned orders are set aside. The suit be carried forward, according to law.
Rule accordingly made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. amj/wp8326.09
(SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.