1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.: 12732 OF 2010 IN CIVIL REVN.APPLN. St. NO.: 24910 OF 2010 *** Trinity Forge Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Prakash Industrial Corporation and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.: 12732 OF 2010 IN CIVIL REVN.APPLN. St. NO.: 24910 OF 2010 *** Trinity Forge Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Prakash Industrial Corporation and others. *** Mr. S. L. Bhapkar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. V. S. Bedre, Advocate for Respondent No. 1. *** CORAM: K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED: 9th DECEMBER, 2010. 1. Mr. Bhapkar deletes Respondent No.2, who is not yet served. 2. Heard. There was a delay from the date of order, in filing the writ. Since writ was not the solution to the controversy, civil revision application is filed as the matter 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.: 12732 OF 2010 IN CIVIL REVN.APPLN. St. NO.: 24910 OF 2010 *** Trinity Forge Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Prakash Industrial Corporation and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. revolves to recovery. In total exercise, there is delay of 619 days. Though the delay is exorbitant, it has been explained by the revision applicant. The matter revolves to non-application of section 22 of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The date of order is 3rd October, 2008, the exercise of writ in June, 2009 apparently was belated. However, considering above referred miseries faced by the revision applicant, the delay is condoned on the revision applicant paying costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the Respondent. Cost to be deposited in this Court within four weeks. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:09/12/2010. ans/12732