Skip to content


Percy Shiavak Mistry Vs. Bennet Coleman and Company Ltd. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Civil

Court

Mumbai High Court

Decided On

Case Number

Execution Application No. 311 of 2008 and Notice No. 1759 of 2008 in Case No. 1994 M. No. 1976

Judge

Reported in

2009(4)BomCR242

Acts

Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 13 - Order 13, Rule 2 - Order 19, Rule 3 - Order 21, Rule 22 - Order 41, Rule 27

Appellant

Percy Shiavak Mistry

Respondent

Bennet Coleman and Company Ltd.

Appellant Advocate

Darius Khambata, Sr. Adv., ;K.A. Setalwad, Adv., i/b., ;Mulla and Mulla and CBC, Adv.

Respondent Advocate

J.J. Bhatt, Sr. Adv., ;A.M. Chandurkar and ;Sumit Raghani, Advs., i/b., ;PDS and Associates

Excerpt:


- .....in great britain and authorized to accept service of process. the defendant did not enter appearance in the proceedings in london. on 5th june, 1995, an affidavit was filed by the plaintiff's solicitor, mr. peter edward marrow, in the firm of tanners in order to seek a direction that service effected upon mr. umesh chandrasekhar was effective service upon the defendant and that a judgment be entered, in default of defence, with damages to be assessed.2. four orders came to be passed by the high court of justice on 21st september, 1995, 27th september, 1995, 16th june, 1998 and 11th may, 1999. by the first of the orders delivered on 21st september, 1995, judgment was entered for the plaintiff with damages to be assessed. since the issue which is raised in these proceedings would turn on the text of the judgment, it would be necessary to extract the entirety of the judgment:

Judgment:


D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

1. On 10th June, 1994 an article was published in the Daily Edition of the Economic Times. The article, according to the plaintiff, contained statements which were defamatory. On 8th September, 1994, the plaintiff instituted proceedings before the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division in the U.K. for seeking damages for libel and an injunction in respect of the publication of the defamatory article. Service of those proceedings was effected on Mr. Umesh Chandrasekhar, who according to the plaintiff, was the resident representative of the defendant in Great Britain and authorized to accept service of process. The defendant did not enter appearance in the proceedings in London. On 5th June, 1995, an affidavit was filed by the plaintiff's Solicitor, Mr. Peter Edward Marrow, in the firm of Tanners in order to seek a direction that service effected upon Mr. Umesh Chandrasekhar was effective service upon the defendant and that a judgment be entered, in default of defence, with damages to be assessed.

2. Four orders came to be passed by the High Court of Justice on 21st September, 1995, 27th September, 1995, 16th June, 1998 and 11th May, 1999. By the first of the orders delivered on 21st September, 1995, judgment was entered for the plaintiff with damages to be assessed. Since the issue which is raised in these proceedings would turn on the text of the judgment, it would be necessary to extract the entirety of the judgment:


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //