Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6419/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6419 of 2009
=============================================
INSPECTORATE
GRIFFITH INDIA PVT LTD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA & 3 - Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance
:
MR JAIDEEP B VERMA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MR MIHIR H PATHAK for Petitioner(s) : 1,
DELETED
for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2 -
4.
MR AJAY R MEHTA for Respondent(s) : 2,
MR ABHIRAJ R TRIVEDI
for Respondent(s) : 3,
NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for Respondent(s) :
4,
=============================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 04/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
learned advocates for the parties.
2. Mr.
S.N.Shelat, learned senior advocate appearing with Mr.Jaideep Verma
and Mr. Mihir Pathak, learned advocates for the petitioner submit
that the in rejecting the application of the petitioner [original
defendant] in the suit filed under Order I Rule 10(2) and/or Order I
Rule 3A read with Order II Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 had not considered the prayer in its correct
perspective in view of pendency of arbitration clause between
defendant No.1 and defendant No.3. Learned advocate relies on the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of Economic Transport
Organization v. M/s. Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. & Anr. [2010
(2) SCALE].
3. Mr.
Ajay Mehta, learned advocate for respondent No.2 has invited
attention of this Court to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner and
in para 12 it is averred by the deponent that the original plaintiff
has not been subrogated nor can it properly claim to be subrogated.
Learned advocate further submits that it cannot be said that OM
Carriers [defendant No.2] is not a necessary or proper party and
the order passed by the trial court do not require any interference
in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India.
4. Considering
the nature of dispute, the issue involved in this petition can be
decided finally. Hence, Rule returnable on 22nd
September, 2010. Mr. Ajay Mehta, learned advocate, waives service of
rule on behalf of respondent No.2, Mr. Abhiraj Trivedi, learned
advocate, waives for respondent No.3.
5. Meanwhile,
ad-interim relief in terms of para 21(c).
[ANANT
S. DAVE, J.]
//smita//
Top