M.M. Gupta v. M/S. Maars Software

Application No.2902 of 2006 in C.S.No.444 of 2006 PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA.J The plaintiff has sought for an amendment seeking alternative relief of damages for refund of advance.

2. Though the application was numbered as early as in the year 2006, it was not ordered.

3. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the applicant/plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendants 1 to 3.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/ first defendant has got no objection in allowing the application.

5. It is now stated by the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent-Bank that a sum of Rs.11 crores approximately is available with them payable to the first respondent/first defendant. The said amount has to be retained by the Bank until further orders from this Court.

http://www.judis.nic.in

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA.J srn

6. Considering the submissions made on either side and being satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this application, the application is allowed. The Plaintiff is directed to carry out necessary amendments in two weeks time.

7. Post the matter on 06.11.2019.

23.10.2019 srn Application No.2902 of 2006 in C.S.No.444 of 2006 http://www.judis.nic.in