1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 340 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 2030 OF 1996 Tata Tea Ltd. ........Plaintiffs versus The Export Credit & Guarantee corporation of India Ltd ........Defendants. Mr. Riyaz Chagla with Arun Siwach withBhalchandra Palav with Aditya Mehta i/b Amarchand & Mangaldas adv. for the Plaintiffs Mr. B.B. Sorab with M. P. Bhatia i/b. M.K. Ambalal & Co. adv. for the Defendants CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 22nd APRIL, 2009. P.C.: 1. By the present chamber summons the plaintiff is seeking amendment of the plaint with a view to bring on record certain subsequent events sush as filing of the suit in Ernakulam Court, in the State of Kerala and a writ petition in Calcutta High Court. The correctness of the judgment in the writ petition delivered by Calutta High Court was challenged in the Supreme Court by filing SLP. The SLP has also been disposed of by the Supreme Court by a considered judgment. These are the facts which are sought to be brought on record in the facts of the 2 present case and hence the proposed amendment deserves to be allowed. In the result the chamber summons is allowed and dispose of. However it is clarified that the defendant would be entitled to file consequential written statement to the amended plaint. The learned counsel for the defendant has contended that the judgment of the Supreme court and the Kerala High Court has no relavance to the present suit. The merit of the amedment cannot be contested while considering the chamber summons and it would be open for the defendant to file consequential written statement. In the result the chamber summons is allowed and disposed of. Amendment to be carried out within four weeks from today. Copy of the amended plaint would be served on the defendant within two weeks therefrom and the defendant to file additional written statement within a period of two weeks therefrom. Motion to come up for hearing beyond vacation. (A. P. DESHPANDE, J.)