← Library
Bombay High CourtCHS/1536/2015disposed off

Mahendra Balbhadra Thakkar v. M/S. Swastik Industries And 2 ORS.

2016-11-16Hon'Ble Shri Justice K.R. Shriram2 pages

34.CHS-1536-2015.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1536 OF 2015 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1148 OF 2015 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1758 OF 2015 IN SUIT NO.581 OF 2015 Mahendra Balbhadra Thakkar ....Applicant/Plaintiff V/s.

M/s. Swastik Industries & Ors. ....Defendants ---- Mr. Mehul A. Shah a/w. Ms. Kavita Shah for the applicant/plaintiff. Ms. Ankita Singhania a/w. Ms. Swapna Roopawate and Ms. Spardha Sharma i/b. Mr. Tushar A. Goradia for the defendants. ---- CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J DATE : 16th NOVEMBER, 2016 P.C.:- CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1536 OF 2015 This chamber summons is taken out for the following relief :

"(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the defendant nos.1 and 2 to provide to the plaintiff, true copies of the documents, i.e. (i) the Deed of Retirement by which the deceased defendant no.3 retired from defendant no.1 firm, (ii) the Deed of Partnership by which, Mrs. Waheeda Nazim shah joined as a partner of defendant no.1 firm and (iii) current extract of the registration of the defendant no.1 firm, within a period of two weeks from the date of the order or within such time as the Hon'ble Court may fix."

Gauri Gaekwad

34.CHS-1536-2015.doc Ms. Singhania, counsel appearing for the defendants states that the defendant no.1 is a registered partnership firm and the documents which are being sought are public documents and the applicant could obtain the same from the Office of the Registrar of Firms. From the affidavit in support of this application it appears that the plaintiff has approached the Registrar of Firms. The Registrar of Firms has by a letter dated 17th October, 2015 informed the plaintiff that defendant no.1 does not appear to be in the card list. Ms. Singhania is denying the same. At the same time, these are the documents which will certainly be in the possession of defendant no.1 and I see no reason why defendant no.1 should have any problem providing copies of the documents as stated in the prayer clause quoted above.

Therefore, the defendant no.1 is directed to provide these documents within two weeks from today to the plaintiff and the same to be certified as true copy by the defendant no.1 and their advocate on record.

The chamber summons accordingly stands disposed. (K.R.SHRIRAM,J) Gauri Gaekwad