MR. HAYAGRIV ASHOK JOGANI, OF MUMBAI INDIAN INHABITANT, RESIDING AT 61/A, 6TH FLOOR, TAHNEE HEIGHTS, BUILDING NO.D, PETIT HALL, 66, NEPEAN SEA ROAD, MUMBAI Vs. SAILAM BVBA, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT HOVENIERSTRAAT, 2
LAWS(BOM)-2017-2-116
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on February 27,2017

Mr. Hayagriv Ashok Jogani, Of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant, Residing At 61/A, 6Th Floor, Tahnee Heights, Building No.D, Petit Hall, 66, Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai Appellant
VERSUS
Sailam Bvba, A Registered Partnership Firm, Having Its Registered Office At Hovenierstraat, 2 Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. - (1.) This Appeal (Appeal (Lodg.) No.310 of 2016) by the original Defendant Nos.2 to 4 under section 13 of the Commercial Courts Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (Act 4 of 2016) challenges the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 16th April, 2016, in Notice of Motion No.1562 of 2015 moved by the appellants and respondent No.3 to this appeal who is the original defendant No.5 in a Summary Suit being Summary Suit No. 334 of 2012.
(2.) It is the rejection of the appellants' application for setting aside an ex-parte decree dated 20th August, 2014, passed in the above Summary Suit which is impugned in this appeal.
(3.) At the outset, we clarify that it is that aspect of the impugned order and the proceedings which is highlighted by the appellants before us. Hence, the title as appearing in the impugned order may refer to several applications, but each of those may not be relevant for us. Once we note that the essential controversy is about the correctness and legality of the learned single Judge's order refusing to set aside the ex-parte decree, then, we would focus only on the same.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.