IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Company Application No. 676 of 2008 in Company Petition No.995 of 2008 In the matter of winding up M/s Micro Planate Ltd. Micro Plantae Limited ..Applicant vs. 1. Karvy Consultants Ltd. & anr. Respondents Mr.Subhash Jha i/b Apex Juris for applicant. Mr.H.S.Knokawala i/b Mr.I.J.Nankani for respondent Mr.S.Ramakantha, Dy.O.L. present. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. J. J. 5th June 2008 5th June 2008 5th June 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This company petition was admitted by this Court and was decided exparte by order passed on 10th January, 2008. This petition was decided along with Company Petition No.828 of 2001. 2. The respondent company has moved this company application for setting aside this order on the ground that the same has been passed exparte. 3. Mr.Jha appearing in support of the company application states that para 1 of the order dated 10th January, 2008 would demonstrate that the same is exparte. Further, he invites my attention to the annexures of the affidavit in support and contends that the original petitioner has not acted bonafide. It is contended by Mr.Jha that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent/applicant was amicably resolved. There is a settlement agreement dated 22nd February, 2005 under which payment of Rs.3,35,000/- was made by demand draft and the same has been accepted in full and final settlement. Suppressing this fact the company petition was argued and winding up order has been passed. 4. A perusal of the settlement agreement, the copy of which is at Exhibit B to the affidavit in support, would disclose that the petitioner M/s Karvy Consultants Ltd. and the respondent company are parties thereto. The authorised signatories have signed the same. All transactions are reflected therein and thereafter it is stated that against the dues of Rs.10,52,500/-, the original petitioner accepted Rs.3,50,000/- in full and final settlement of all its dues under the subject transaction. 5. There is no affidavit in reply filed to dispute this factual position. There is no denial of signing and execution of the settlement agreement. There is no denial of the fact of demand draft being forwarded and duly received. In such circumstances, and when the order passed on the company petition, is exparte order, interest of justice would be subserved if this company application is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Ordered accordingly. 6. In the light of facts stated in the affidavit in support which are not denied the company petition no.995 of 1997 is restored and taken up for hearing by consent of parties forthwith. 7. In the light of the contents of the affidavit in support of the company application no.676 of 2008 so also the facts noted above, this company petition does not survive and is accordingly dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)