- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION No. 139 OF 2008 IN COMPANY PETITION No. 854 OF 2007 IN COMPANY APPLICATION No.900 OF 2007 Bilpower Ltd. ... Petitioner Vs. Bhavana Ashit Desai ... Applicant Mr. Rajesh Shah, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Neeta Solanki i/b Kiran Jain & Co. Applicant CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 6, 2008. PC :- . Heard the counsel for the parties. The principal grievance in this application is that although the applicant had filed reply affidavit raising objection to the scheme propounded by the Company, the said affidavit dated 17th January 2008 has not been considered by the Court at all. Instead in paragraph 16 of the order dated 18th January 2008 the Court has recorded that no objection to the scheme has been received from any party. On this contention, it is requested that - 2 - the order dated 18th January 2008, allowing the petition be recalled and the main petition be restored to the file, to be heard on merits afresh. 2. The grievance made on behalf of the applicant clearly overlooks the fact that in terms of order dated 14th December, 2007, the applicant/objector was required to file reply affidavit on or before 8th January 2008. Obviously, as the reply was filed beyond the specified date, the same was not taken on record. Admittedly, the delay in filing reply by the objector has not been excused by the Court. In absence of further order by the Court for condoning the delay in filing the reply affidavit, the filing of such affidavit was of no avail. 3. Besides, admittedly, no appearance was made on behalf of the objector on 18th January 2008 when the matter was called out, in spite of the fact that the appearance of the advocate on record was duly notified on the board. 4. Be that as it may, even if the contents of the affidavit dated 17th January 2008 were to be - 3 - reckoned wherein it is asserted that the objector is entitled to receive some amounts from the transferee company, in relation to the sale deed executed between the parties in respect of the immovable property. That grievance cannot be taken into account in considering the scheme which is propounded by the company, which relates to the shareholders alone. There is no provision in the scheme which is likely to affect the secured or unsecured creditors, one way or the other. The grievance of the applicant, if any, will have to be addressed in appropriate proceedings. This is so because, the transferee company still continues. The applicant will be free to pursue such action against the transferee company for recovery of its dues, as may be advised. In this view of the matter, I find no reason to recall the order dated 18th January 2008. 5. Accordingly, the application is disposed of in above terms. Sd/- [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]