1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 807 OF 2009 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 1102 OF 2001 M/s. Nilam Enterprises .. Applicant. V/s. M/s. Santosh Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., .. Respondents. --- Mr. A.K. Tripathi i/by P.v. Dhopatkar for the Applicant. --- CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA J. Dated : 24th September, 2009 P.C. 1. This company application is taken out by the Applicant (Original Petitioner) for setting aside the order dated 14th November, 2008 passed by this court (Coram : A.M. Khanwilkar, J), dismissing the company petition and for restoration of the company petition. The Applicants have also prayed that they be allowed to publish an advertisement and file an affidavit of 2 publication as directed by this court on 5th April, 2002. 2. The winding up petition was admitted by this court by its order dated 5th April, 2002. By the said order, the petition was directed to be advertised upon the applicant s/ petitioner s depositing a sum of Rs. 2000/- with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this court within a period of four weeks from the date of the said order i.e. 5th of April, 2002. 3. The applicant/ petitioner failed and neglected to take any steps to comply with the directions dated 5th April, 2002 passed by this court. Thereafter, the matter appeared before this court on 14th November, 2008 when the parties and their Advocates were absent. This court therefore, by its said order directed the petitioner to file an 3 affidavit of publication on or before 15th December, 2008 and also recorded that in the event of failure on the part of the petitioner to file the affidavit as directed, the company petition would stand dismissed for non-prosecution without reference to the Court. Since no steps were taken by the petitioner to comply with the order passed by this court, the petition stood dismissed. 4. Except for submitting that there was a communication gap between the applicant/ petitioner and his Advocate, no explanation is given by the learned Advocate for the Applicant/ Petitioner for not advertising the petition in the last seven years, as directed by this court by its order dated 5th April, 2002. Since there is no sufficient cause shown for allowing the petition to be advertised after a gap of about 7 years, the question of restoring the petition and 4 allowing the applicant/petitioner to comply with the order passed by this court dated 5th April, 2002 does not arise. 5. The application is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.)