1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 339 OF 2009 IN APPEAL LODGING NO. 482 OF 2008 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 676 OF 2006 IN COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 1041 OF 2006 Sakshi Ideal Investments and Trading Pvt. Ltd. .. Appellant Vs. Kotak Mahindra Securities Ltd. .. Respondent WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 340 OF 2009 IN APPEAL LODING NO. 480 OF 2008 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 677 OF 2006 IN COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 1042 OF 2006 Sakshi Ideal Investments and Trading Pvt. Ltd. .. Appellant Vs. Kotak Mahindra Capital Co. Ltd. .. Respondent Ms. Rajni Bagve for appellant in both the Motions. Mr. Simil Purohit a/w Tapan Deshpande i/by Amarchand & Mangaldas for respondent in both the Motions. 2 CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. February 11, 2010. P.C. 1. The above mentioned appeals have been filed belatedly and, therefore, these Motions taken out for condonation of delay. Challenge in the appeals is a common order dated 15/2/2007 passed in Company Petition Nos. 676 of 2006 and 677 of 2006. 2. We have perused the affidavits in support of the Motions. The Motions have been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent- company. Though the appellant-company states that there is a delay of 181 days in filing the appeals, the same has been disputed and, in fact, challenged by the respondent. It needs to be recorded that a common order came to be passed on 9/2/2007 in four Company Petitions i.e. Company Petition Nos. 776 and 777 of 2006 and 676 and 677 of 2006 and for administrative reasons the order was separated on 15/2/2007 in respect of Company Petition Nos. 676 and 677 of 2006. Admittedly, against the common order dated 9/2/2007 an appeal was filed on 11/4/2007 baring 3 Lodging No. 369 of 2007 and when the appeal came up on board on 23/4/2008 it was brought to the notice of this court that the order dated 9/2/2007 was recalled and a fresh order was passed on 15/2/2007 but materially to the same effect. As per the appellant, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn so as to file fresh appeal against the order dated 15/2/2007 and this was as per the order dated 23/4/2008. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if the limitation is considered from 23/4/2008, the delay caused is of 181 days, whereas the learned counsel for the respondent-company urged that the delay may be counted from 9/2/2007 or at the most from 15/2/2007 and if so counted, it is about 750 days. The explanation furnished in support of the prayer for delay condonation is based on the medical certificates. These certificates do not indicate that the Director of the appellant-company was hospitalized or was in any way incapacitated to contact an Advocate and file an appeal within the prescribed limitation period. The learned counsel for the respondent- company justified in opposing the prayer for condonation of delay and he has more particularly pointed out the vague averments made that the appellant is the creditor of Kotak group and did not specify the name of the respondent-company or any other company of the Kotak group. However, the fact remains that connected appeals i.e. Appeal Nos. 146 and 147 of 4 2008 have been admitted by this court on 28/7/2008 and, therefore, to do substantial justice, it would be just and proper to allow the prayer for condonation of delay. However, it would be appropriate to saddle the appellant with exemplary costs while condoning the delay. 3. Hence, the Motions are made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to the appellant-company paying a sum of Rs.50,000/- in each Motion by way of costs. The amount of costs shall be deposited with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this court within a period of two weeks and shall be allowed to be withdrawn on an application made by the respondent-company. (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)