1 upa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1590 OF 2006 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1590 OF 2006 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1590 OF 2006 IN IN IN SUIT NO.372 OF 1871 SUIT NO.372 OF 1871 SUIT NO.372 OF 1871 Bhumiputra Commerce Bank Berhad ).. Plaintiffs Versus M/s.P.V.P. Limited ).. Defendants Mr.N.R. Modi with Ms.Falguni Thakkar i/b.Rustomji & Ginwala for the Plaintiffs. Mr.Ajay K.J. Panickar for the Defendants. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 16TH JUNE 2006 DATED : 16TH JUNE 2006 DATED : 16TH JUNE 2006 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The present Motion has been taken out by the Defendants for setting aside the decree passed in the Suit on 17th March 2006. The main ground of challenge to the passing of the decree is that the Defendants were before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) and the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to proceed with the Suit in view of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The Defendants rely on Exhibit "B" to the affidavit in support of the Motion which is an order obtained by the Defendants in April 2006 of the website of BIFR i.e. http.//bifr.nic.in. It appears that this document was not produced before the learned Judge when 2 the decree was passed. The only document produced was dated 2nd June 1994 showing that the matter was pending before the BIFR. It appears that the learned Judge had requested the parties to produce the current status of the matter before the BIFR which the Defendants failed to produce. Exhibit "B" does not indicate the current status of the matter but the status as on 31st October 2005. It is in these circumstances that the decree was passed. 2. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the Defendants is that the affidavit in evidence filed by the Plaintiffs was not served on the Defendants. According to the Plaintiffs’ Advocate, there was no Vakalatnama filed on behalf of the Defendants and hence the affidavit could not be served on the Defendants. Nobody appeared on the day when the affidavit was filed in Court. Therefore, the learned Judge has observed that the Defendants have not cross-examined the witness for the Plaintiffs. 3. In my opinion, no case has been made out for setting aside the decree. Motion dismissed.