1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi COMPANY APPLICATION NO.1657 OF 2008 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 534 OF 2008. Sudha Industrial Corporation Ltd. ..Applicants/Org. Respondents. vs. Mr.P.K.Sharma. ..Respondent/Org. Petitioner. WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO.1658 OF 2008 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 535 OF 2008. Sudha Industrial Corporation Ltd. ..Applicants/Org. Respondents. vs. Mr.P.K.Sharma. ..Respondent/Org. Petitioner. WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO.1659 OF 2008 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 536 OF 2008. Sudha Industrial Corporation Ltd. ..Applicants/Org. Respondents. vs. Smt. Draupadi Sharma ..Respondent/Org. Petitioner. 2 .... Ms. M.R. Patel, for Original Petitioner. Mr. Vikas Singh, i/b. Lambay & Co., for Applicant. Official Liquidator, present. .... CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 24TH JULY 2009. P.C. Th applicants are original respondents in the above company petitions. By these applications, the applicants are seeking recall of orders dated 5 th September 2008, admitting company petition nos.534 of 2008, 535 of 2008 and 536 of 2008. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicants states that he has called up the applicants several times but they have not come forward to give him instructions. 2. I have perused the order dated 5 th September 2008 passed by this Court admitting company petition nos.534 of 2008, 535 of 2008 and 536 of 2008 and have noted that the applicants had not only failed to respond to the statutory notice issued by the petitioner, but had also failed and neglected to appear before the Court even after receiving a notice from the Court Office dated 23 rd July 2008. The 3 reasons for not attending the Court proceedings, set out in the affidavit in support of the application are not satisfactory/convincing. Even after filing of these applications, the applicant’s behaviour has not changed and even now they have not come forward to give instructions to their Advocates. 3. Keeping in view the conduct of the applicants and even after considering the applications on merits, I am of the view that the applications deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly, company application nos.1657 of 2008, 1658 of 2008 and 1659 of 2008 stand dismissed with costs. [ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ]