IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION NO.1257 OF 2008 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.203 OF 2002 Dinesh L.Patel & Anr. ...Applicants V/s. M/s.Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. ...Respondents ...... Mr.B.B.Parekh for Applicants. Mr.H.N.Thakore i/b Thakore Jariwala & Associates for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. NOVEMBER 24, 2008. NOVEMBER 24, 2008. NOVEMBER 24, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The main grievance of the Applicants is that the communication sent by the Company regarding the Scheme was never received by the Applicants. However, at the same time, the Applicants in letter dated 19th December 2002 sent under the signature of Applicant No.1 has plainly conceded having received Circular dated 24th May : 2 : 2002 sent by the Company to the respective shareholders calling upon the shareholders to avail of the option on or before 21st June 2002. 2. This communication was obviously sent in the context of order passed by the Company Judge dated 19th April 2002 approving the scheme propounded by the Company. It is not in dispute that the Scheme propounded has not only been approved by the Company Judge but that view has been approved by the Division Bench on 15th July 2002 and later on by the Supreme Court on 22nd February 2006. The Applicants, however, have chosen to file present Application only on 7th April 2005. Neither in the communication sent on 19th December 2002 nor in the affidavit in support dated 7th April 2005, the Applicants have specifically mentioned the date on which the circular dated 24th May 2002 was received by them. On the other hand, from the averments in the communication sent under the signature of Applicant No.1 and in paragraph 7 of the affidavit in support the Applicants have conceded the position that : 3 : circular dated 24th May 2002 was duly received by them along with cheque drawn in their favour in the sum of Rs.50,000/-. (Rupees Fifty Thousand). If it is so, the fact that the Applicants have not realised the cheque and that it sent letter only on December 19, 2002 will be of no avail to the Applicants. The Applicants were obliged to submit form duly filled in on or before 21st June 2002, which condition has not been complied by the Applicants. If it is so, the Applicants cannot be heard to contend that the Scheme as approved by the Court is inapplicable to them and they have opted out of the said Scheme. 3. Counsel for the Applicants realising the difficulty, now prays that the Applicants be given one opportunity to place on record relevant documents to support the stand of the Applicants that the communication dated 24th May 2002 sent by the Company was not received by the Applicants on or before 21st June 2002. 4. By way of indulgence, Applicants are granted further time till 1st December 2008 to : 4 : place on record relevant material in support of their submission, failing which, Application to stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court. In case steps are taken in time, the matter be listed on 5th December 2008 high on board. 5. In case, the Applicants are not in a position to place further contemporaneous documents to support their stand to be stated on affidavit, the efficacy of that stand will be considered on the next date of hearing. Giving opportunity to the Applicants, by itself, does not mean that the argument of the Applicants deserve acceptance. The veracity of the stand so taken and the documents relied upon will have to be tested which will be done on the next date of hearing. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.