IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY NOTICE OF MOTION NO__ of 2024 IN SUIT NO 2504 OF 2017 ‘The Chairman, Mumbai Por Trust and Ors. .- Applicant INTHE MATTER OF: - Mohd, Zohurul Abdul Rashid Gazi and others + Plaintits Vis. ‘The Chairman, Mumbai Port Trust and Ors Defendants INDEX = Particulars No. | | Notice of Motion on behalf of Defendant No. 1) Exhibit Copy of Order dated 23.03.2020 hibit B- Copy of Order dated 10.01.2022 Exhibit C— Copy of the Authority let 16.09.2022 Docker ee Advocates for the Applicant / Defendant No. 1 “CTAINTHE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY NOTICE OF MOTION NO __ of 2024 surrNo2s0s oF 2017 ‘The Chairman, Mumbai Port Trust ) Being a statutory corporation ) Incorporated under the Major Port ) Trust Act, 2021 having ) ‘Their Principal place business at ) S.V Marg, Ballard Estate ) “Mumbai 400 001 )---Applicant Inthe matter between 1, Mohd. Zohurul AbdulRashid Gazi Aged 51 Years, Self Employed Residing At Zopda No CEN 136/4, Coal Depot, Fosbery Road Opp. Jivan Lallu Bhai Godown, Beside Plot No, (C-4, Sewri (E), Mumbai - 400 015 2, Dharmendrakumar R, Jaiswar ‘Aged 36 Years, Oce- Salaried, Residing At Zopda No CEN 136/3, Coal Depot, Fosbery Road.Opp. Jivan, Lallu Bhai Godown Beside Plot No. C-4, Sewri (E), Mumbai - 400 015. 3. Meenakumari Ghanshyam Rajbhar ‘Aged 47 Years, Oce. Housewife Residing At Zopda No CEN 13/8, wvCoal Depot, Fosbery Road, Opp. Jivan Lalu Bhai Godown, Beside Plot No, ‘Ad, Sew (E), Mumbai - 400015, 4. Avinash Ghanshyam Rajbhar Aged 23 Years, Occ. Salaried, Residing At Zopda No CEN 133(10) Coal Depot, Fosbery Road, Opp. Jivan Lallu Bhai Godown, Beside Plot No, Ad, Sewri(E), Mumbai-400 OLS. 5, Chinak Jameshwvar Verma ‘Aged 47 Years, Oce. Salaried Residing At Zopda No CEN 136/8, Coal Depot, Fosbery Road, Opp. Jivan Lallu Bhai Godown, Sewri (E), Beside Plot No.C-4, Mumbai - 400 01 6. Sosamma Shaji Aged 45 Years, Oce. Salaried Residing At Zopda No CEN 136/7, Coal Depot, Fosbery Road, Opp. Jivan LLallu Bhaj Godown, Beside Plot No, (C-4 Sewri (2), Mumbai 400 015, 7. Kavita K. Jaiswar ‘Aged 27 Y ears, Ove, Housewife Residing At Zopela No CEN 136/5 Coal Depot, Fosbery Road; Opp. Jivan Lallu Bhai Godown, Beside Plot No, (C-4, Sewti (E), Mumbai-400 015 8. Leela Mansingh Thalari ‘Aged 44 Y ears, Ove, Housewife Residing At Zopda No CEN 1346/1 Coal Depot, Fosbery Road , Opp. Jivan Lallu Bhai Godown, Beside Plot No, (€-2, Sewri (E), Mumbai - 400 015, 9. Abdul Karim Mohd Zohurul Gazi Aged 26 Years, Occ, Salaried Residing At Zopda No CEN 136/6, Coal Depot, Fosbery Road.Opp. Jivana Lallu Bhai Godown, Beside PlotNo, C4, Seri (E), Mumbai 400.015, 10,Geeta Mansingh Thalari Aged 29 Years, Occ. Housewife, Residing At Zopda No CEN 136/9, Coal Depot, Fosbery Road.Opp. ivan Lallu Bhai Godown, Beside Plot No. C-2, Sewti (E), Mumbai-400 015. 11.Shakuntala Ramsevak Gaud Aged 61 Years, Oce. Housewife, Residing At Zopda No CEN 133/11, Coal Depot, Fosbery Road, Near Khimji Poonja Co., Opp. Jivan Lalu Bhai Godown, Beside Plot No. A4, Sew (E), Mumbai-400 O15. 12.Davis Ouseph Varrikkassery Aged 63 Years, Occ. Self Employed Residing At Zopda No CEN 13476, Coal Depot, Fosbery Road, Opp. Sivan Lallu Bhai Godown, Sewri (E), Beside Plot No.A.4, Mumbai - 400 015. 13.Nacemuddin Abdul Jabbar Shaikh ‘Aged 35 Years, Oce, Salaried Residing At Zopda No CEN 136/2, Coal Depot, Fosbery Road, Opp. Jivan Lallu Bhai Godown, Beside Plot No. CA, Sewri (E), Mumbai - 400 015. 14.Mohd. Anarul Abdul Rashid Gazi Aged Years, Occ. Salaried Residing At Zopda No CEN 142/2, Coal Depot, Fosbery Road, Sewri (E), Mumbai - 400 015. 15. Kala Indrajit Singh Aged 44 Years, Oce, Housewife Residing At Zopda No CEN 139/3, Coal Depot, Opp. Jivan Lallu Bhai weGodown, Beside Plot No.C- Sewri (E), Mumbai - 400 01 16.Suresh Jaiswan Sing ‘Aged 45 Years, Occ. Business Residing At Zopda.No CEN 137/14 Coal Depot, Foshery Road, Opp. Jivan Lallu Bhai Godown, Beside Plot No, C-2, Sewri (E), Mumbai - 400015, 17 Mahendra Prasad Gaud ‘Aged 45 Years, Occ. Self Employed Residing At Zopda No CEN 142/3, Coal Depot Sewri (), Mumbai-400015 Plaindits Vs 1. The Chairman Mumbai Port Trust, S.V. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400 00 1 2. The Chief Officer Estate Department, $.V. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400 001 «Defendants TAKE NOTICE THAT the Hon'ble Court will be moved before his Lordship Hon’ble Judge _ _onthe day of__, 2024 in the forenoon or soon thereafer when the counsel on behalf of Defendants willbe heard forthe following urgent relef:= 8) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to condone the delay of 1628 days in filing the Writen Statement 8) That this tTon’ble Court be pleased to allow the Defendants tofile its Writen Statement inthe above captioned matter b) For costs of the present Notice of Motion w©) That this Hon"ble Court be pleased to pass such other and further onders and directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case ‘Mumbai, dated this day of May, 2024 ‘THIS NOTICE OF MOTION ) thas been taken out by ) Mis, The Law Point, Advocates ) for the Defendants, having their office) ‘at 703-704, Tulsiani Chambers, ) ‘Nariman Point, Mumbai -400 021 ) Advocate for Applicant / Defendants Plaintiffs Nos.1 to 17 abovenamed yNB: The Affidavit of Suhel working as liget xin the office of the Applicant / Defendants abovenamed, dated (+{94[20— will be used in support ofthis Notice of Motion,t IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY NOTICE OF MOTION NO__ of 2024 IN SUIT NO 2504 OF 2017 ‘The Chairman, Mumbai Port Trust and Ors. Applicant INTHE MATTER O1 Mod. Zohurul Abdul Rashid Gazi and others .-Plaintifs vss. ‘The Chairman, Mumbai Port Trust and Ors. Defendants AREIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE NOTICE OF MOTION |, SUGANDHLA S. PATIL, Indian inhabitant, working as Legal Assistant with Mumbai Port Authority, the Applicant abovenamed having it Office at Vilydeep, S.V. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 do hereby solemnly alfiem and say a under 1. Lam curenty designated as Legal Assistant in the office ofthe Applicant and have been duly authorized to file the present Affidavit on behalf ofthe Applicant. 1 have perused the records maintained by the Applicant in is official couse of business and am filing the affidavit on the basis of such records, 2. By way of the instant Notice of Motion, the Applicant is seeking the indulgence of this Hon’ble Court to condone a delay of 1628 days in filing the Written Statement and permit Applicant to place on record its Written Statement3. submit that the Defendants entered its first appearance in the present suit on 02.12.2017. Even assuming, but not adnittng, tha the 30 days pesiod commences fiom the date of appearance ofthe Defendants, say that that by virtue of the orders passed by the Hon"ble Supreme Court extending the period of limitation, the delay involved in filing the Writen Statement i not substantial The delay is also properly justified and is liable for condonation 4. say that vide onder dated 23.03.2020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had extended the limitation period of all proceedings, imespestive of limitation prescribod under the general or special law whether condonable or ot, with eect, from 15.03.2020. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “A” isa copy ofthe order ated 23.03.2020, 5. 1 say thatthe Plaintiff had filed a Notice of Motion along with its Suit The Defendant had immediately filed its reply to the Notice of Motion submitting its substantial defence therein including the defence regarding the maintainability of the Suit and its dismissal atthe threshold, The sad Notice of Motion was being heard of several dates and was finally decided on 11.08.2023, Ths, during the pendency of the Notice of Motion, the Defendant inadvertently did not file its \Wiriten Statement on the assumption that once the Notice of Motion is argued and decided, the Defendant would file its Written Statement, 6, ‘Thereafter, immediately, the Defendant is filing the present Notice of Motion.> 7. In light ofthe above circumstances, there is a delay of 1628 days. (From 02 December 2017 (date of first appearance) to 15 March 2020 - 834 days and from 01 Mareh 2022 to 03 May 2024 - 794 days), The delay has been computed in light of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo-Motu Writ Petition No. (C) No. 3 of 2020. I say that vide order dated 23.03.2020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had extended the limitation period of all proceedings, irrespective of limitation prescribed under the general or special law whether condonable or not, with effect from 15.03.2020. I say thatthe operation ofthe order was subsequently extended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time. The Hon'ble Apex Court further clarified that the said extension is also applicable for Written Statements Subsequently, vide order dated 10.01.2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified ‘that the period from 15.03.2020 cll 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded while ‘computing the limitation of proceeding. The Hon'ble Court further clarified that the aforementioned period shall also stand excluded while computing the outer I for condonaton of delay. In addition to the above, the Hon'ble Court clarified that, in cases where limitation period expired during the aforementioned period, al persons shall have @ balance period of limitation for 90 days with effect from 01.03.2022, Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the order dated 10.01.2022, 8, I say that a conjoint reading of the aforementioned orders reveal that for the period from 15.03.2020 ill 28.02.2022 ought to be excluded while‘computing the delay in filing of the Written Statement, In view of the above, the Defendants submit that there és only delay of 1628 days in filing the present Written Statement | reiterate that immediately once the Notice of Motion was decided by the Hon'ble Court, the Defendant has filed its Written Statement. Considering that the matter has not progressed further and issues are also not framed, no prejudice will occasion the Plaintiff if the Motion is allowed. 10. Tsay thatthe Applicant has raised several valid and pertinent defenees in its Writen Statement, including the defence that the present Suit is not ‘maintainable. The same is evident from the accompanying Weitten Statement. suiomit thatthe Hon'ble Supreme Coust has held in numerous eases that the procedure are handmaiden of justice and should not be strictly complied to curtain the substantive righ of a party. The present case is squarely covered under the above ratio, 11. I respectfully submit that delay of 1628 days in filing the Writen Statement occurred on account of genuine and bonafide reasons. I respectflly submit that if the Notice of Motion is not allowed and the Written Statement of the Applicant is not taken on record, it would gravely prejudice and seriously \o\\ cease on merits to succeed in the present Suit and undertakes to abide by and comply any directions passed by this Hon'ble Court in the instant Notice of Motion, 12, ‘The present Affidavit is being filed through SUGANDHA S. PATIL, the Legal Assistant of Applicant abovenamed who is authorized to file the same by Virtue of authority letter dated 16.09.2022. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-“C” isa copy of the authority leter dated 16.09.2022, 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I humbly pray that the accompanying Notice of Motion be made absolute with costs as prayed. 14. In lew f te aon its and cumstances, {humbly pay that the sccompanying Notice of Maton be made bole with cos 8 prayed Solemn atimedat Mambsi ol Dated this day of May, 2024) Z Identified by Us Advocates for the Applicant / DefendantVERIF 10N 1, SUGANDIA S. PATIL, nian inhabitant, working asthe Legal Assistant with Mumbai Port Authority, the Applicant abovenamed having its Office at Vijaydeep, S.V. Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001, do hereby declare that ‘whatever is stated in the foregoing paragraphs is true as per avaiable records and is based on legal advice, which I believe to be tre and correct. Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai) Bhan ‘Dated this day of May, 2024 d a ne t ~ BEFORE ME i exif by Us : ADVOCATE & NOTARY EF Mis Te La Pa Beno roesnl Advocate for Defendants tas... 0. 2.NAY. 202M,‘3 1 TEM wo.32 court No.1 SECTION PIL-W cuPRoME couRT oF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ‘SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No(s).3/2020 IN RE : COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION Date : 23-93-2020 This petition was taken up suo motu for hearing today conan : WON'BLE THE CHIEF ausTIce WON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO WON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT by Courts Motion COUNSEL PRESENT Mr. Tushar Mehta, s¢ Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, adv. We. Ankur Talwar, Adv Wr. 6.8. Makkar, ‘Adv. Nir. Raj Bahadur, Adv Mir. B.V. Balaram Das, AOR Mr. Dushyant Dave, sr. Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER This Court his taken suo Motu cognizance of the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of Covid-19 Virus and resultant difficulties that may be faced by Meigents gross. the country go, yiftling thet etitions/app}ications/usts/ appeals/all other proceedings within the period of Iumitation prescribed underwthe,agperal law of BAfPltcation or under special Laws (both central and/or state). To obviate agin, dirricuneiggi- iy co ensure chk lawyers/Litigants 96" riot jhave to jibe phypically to file sich “a eS ae ae :bs : courts/Tribunals and authoritic ‘his order may be brought to the notice of all High courts for being communicated to all subordinate Courts/Tribunals within their respective jurisdiction. Issue notice to all the Registrars General of the High Courts, returnable in four weeks. (SANIAY_KUMAR-IZ) (MUKESH NASA) (ZNDU_KUNART POKHRIYAL) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cun-PS COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ey\5 1 IN tue SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 21 OF 2022 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 695 OF 202 IN ‘$UO MOTU WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 3 OF 2020 IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION wit MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.29 OF 2022 IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 665 OF 2021 1. In March, 2020, this Court took Suo Motu cognizance of the difficulties that might be faced by the litigants in filing petitions/ applications/ suits/ appeals/ all other quasi proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under any special laws (both Central and/or State) due to tbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.le 2 On 23.03.2020, this Court directed extension of the period of limitation in all proceedings before Courts/Tribunals including this Court w.e.f, 15.03.2020 till further orders. On 08.03.2021, the order dated 23.03.2020 was brought to an end, permitting the relaxation of period of limitation between 15.03.2020 and 14.03.2021, While doing so, it was made clear that the period of limitation would start from 15.03.2021. ‘Thereafter, due to a second surge in COVID-19 cases, the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) intervened in the Suo Motu proceedings by filing Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 seeking restoration of the order dated 23.03.2020 relaxing limitation. ‘The aforesaid Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 was disposed of by Gus Court vide Order dated 25.09.2021, wherein this Court extended the period of limitation in all proceedings before the Courts/Tribunals including this Court wef 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021, The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the y3 Considering the prevailing conditions, the applicants are seeking the following: i. allow the present application by restoring the order dated 23.03.2020 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) NO. 3 of 2020 ; and i, allow the present application by restoring the order dated 27.04.2021 passed by this Hon'ble Court in M.A. no, 665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) NO. 3 of 2020; and ii, pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. ‘Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No, 21 of 2022 with the following directions: 1 The order dated 28.08.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.09.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.09.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or spectal laws in respect of all Judicial or quast- Judicial proceedings. }1, ut N. 4 Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022, in cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance Perlod of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 {S greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the Periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 198 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe pertod(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the6 [As prayed for by learned Senior Counsel, M.A. No. 29 of 2022 1s dismissed as withdrawn. ae Ol. (N.V. RAMANA) “Le Nace: reorient) (SURYA KANT] New Delhi January 10, 2022 920 5 HTEN WO.301 court 1 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-w SUPREME couRT oF rmDrA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS scellangous Application No.21/2022 is 65/2021 in symcc: 1043/2020, EN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LrmrzATION (FOR ADHESION and IR No.1935/2022-APPLICATION UNDER SECTION LY RULE 6 OF THE SUPRENE COURT RULES, 2013) vam in MA 665/2021 in si01(C) to. 3/2020 (pi-w) (FOR ADMISSION and TA Wo.3161/2022-APPLICATION UNDER SECZION LW RULE 6 OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013 and IA No.3444/2022- APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION) Date + 10-01-2022 These natters were called on for hearing today. conan + HON'BLE THE CHIEF gusTrce MOW'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HOW'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shivaji M, Jadhav, adv. Ms. Manoj K. Mishra, Adv. Dr. Joseph Aristotle s., adv. Ms. Diksha Rai, Adv. Mr. Wikhil Jain, Adv. Me. Reulesh Kumar, Adv. Dr. Aman M. Hingorani, Adv. Ms. Anzu Varkey, Adv. Me. Alje Joseph, Adv. Mr. Sachin sharma, Adv. Me. Varinder K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Rankeishne, AOR Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, gr. nay. Me. mimanshu Chaubey, AOR Mr. Prem Dave, Adv. Me, Raghav agrawal, Adv. Me, Toshiv Goyal, Adv. Por Respondent(s) Mr. K.K. Venugopal, ac Me. Tushar menta, 502 Me, Rajat Nair, Rav. fe, Kanw Agrawal, Av. Mel Siddhent Kohli, adv Me, Chinmayee Chandra, Adv. Mr, Arvind Kumar sharma, AOR Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR Mr, Manan Bansal, ‘Adv. Me. Arjun Garg, AOR fir. Aakash Wandolia, Adv. Me. Sagun Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Sunieta ojha, AOR Mr. P. 1. Jose, AOR Mr. Jonis V. Prensis, Rav. Me Prashant K, Sharma, Adv. hs, anindita Mitra, AOR Me, Sahit Tagotra, AOR Nr. Subhro Mukherjee, Adv. Me, Amit sharma, AOR Me, Sameor Parokh, dv. Me, Kehateashal Raj, Adv. Ms, Tanya Chaudhry, Adv. Ms, Pratyusha Priyadarshini, A@v. Ms. Nitika Pandey, Adv. For M/s.Parekh & Co., ROR W/s. VEC Law offices, AOR br. vined Sharma, ROR Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, AOR hr, Kunal chattorji, ROR Mg. Maitrayee Banerjeo, Adv. Me, Rohit Bansal, Adv. Me. Pratibha Jain, AOR sh. Soumya Chakraborty, Sr. Adv, Mie. Sanjai Komar Pathak, AOR Ms. Shashi Pathak, adv. Y'%Q)a. 8 Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, aor Mr. Parikehit Abuja, ‘adv. Ms. Praveena Bisht, Ady. Ms. Madhur Jhavar, ‘Adv. Ms. Vindhya Kehra, Adv. Mr. Kartik Lahoti, adv. Mz. Rahul Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Shivangi Mathotra, adv. Tapesh Kunar Singh, AOR Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, adv. Ms. Aditya warayan Das, Adv, Ms. Binu Tanta, adv, Me. Dhruv Tanta, adv. Me. Siddhesh Kotwal, adv. Ms. Ana Upadhyay, adv. Ms. Manya wasija, adv. Ms. Pragya Bersaiyan, adv. Me. Akash Singh, Adv. Ms. Taruna Ardhendunauli Prasad, Aon Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishea, aon Me, Miranjan Sabu, Adv. Me. Abhimanyu Tewari, adv. Ms. Eliza mar, adv. Me. Avijit Mani Tripathi, 2oR Me. PK. Nayak, adv PON Nearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER he Court 4s convened through Video conferencing. NA: Ho21 of 2022 is Atsposed of and Mua.’ 16.29/2022 ig Gismissed as withdraw, in terms of the signed order. (VISHAL anaxD) (8.8. faRavanany ASER. REGISTRAR cun-P5 count nasmen (xsi) (Signed order is placed on the ie" NY we CoPa4 IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL. COURT AT BOMBAY NOTICE OF MOTION NO. __of 2024 IN SUIT NO. 2504 OF 2017 ‘The Chairman, Mumbai Port Trust and Ors INTHE MATTER 1 Mohd. Zohurul Abdul Rashid Gazi and others Plaintits Vis. The Chairman, Mumbai Port Trust and Ors, Applicant Defendants NOTICE OF MOTION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO. AND? Dated __ May 2024 LIE sree Des = registrar@thelawpoint.com