1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. COMPANY APPLICATION NO.1160 OF 2009 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.912 OF 2004 M/s.Pudumjee Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd. ...Applicant. Vs. M/s.Multi Media Vision Ltd. ...Respondent. .... Mr. S. Dasgupta i/b. R.A. Shaikh for the Applicant. None for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. November 26, 2009. P.C. The Company Petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 15th April 2004. The Company Application has been taken out on 10th November 2009. There is a delay of 2031 days of which condonation has sought. It has been averred that papers were entrusted to an Advocate who primarily practices in Nagpur and that his clerk had failed to inform the Advocate of the date of hearing. This averment is made in paragraph 3. In so far as the delay is concerned, all that is said is that from 1st October 2009, the deponent who is a Constituted Attorney of the Company, enquired with the 2 Advocate about the matter, who made an enquiry with his clerk thereupon. The Applicant has not stated as to why for such an inordinate long period between the date of the service of the Petition in 2004 and 1st October 2009 absolutely no steps were taken by the Applicant to contact the Advocate or to seek instructions on the status of the matter. That apart, full details of the matter were available on the internet. The Applicant is obviously guilty of indolence and negligence in pursuing the proceedings. An affidavit has been filed by the Advocate, but that again does not explain the delay on the part of the Applicant. The Company Application is dismissed. ....