1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION NO.675 OF 2008 Micro Plantae Limited .. Applicant Versus M/s.W.Moolenaar & Zonen Ltd and Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Subhash Jha i/b. Laxmi Menon for applicant Ms.N.N.Malav i/b. Rekha Rajagopal for respondents CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 12th June 2008 P.C. . Heard Mr.Jha for applicant and the learned Counsel for original petitioner. 2. This application prays that the order dated 10th January 2008 winding up the applicant company should be set aside and the Liquidator should be restrained from taking further steps. 2 In the affidavit in support filed by the Manager and Authorised Signatory, the applicant points out that the ex parte order was passed in peculiar circumstances, the company had appointed an Advocate’s firm which could not represent it. The Advocate concerned with the firm passed away on 22nd May 2002. Thereafter the respondent could not follow up the matter with the office of the Advocate’s firm. Hence no instructions could be given to engage another Advocate and file a reply. It is only in April 2008 that the applicant became aware of the order of winding it up because of the communication from the Liquidator. It is in these peculiar circumstances that the company requested that the order passed winding it up be set aside. The original petitioner’s Advocate pointed out that this Court proceeded on the basis that there is no dispute, much less, a bonafide one to the claim. There are no denials of the averments in the petition. In para 3 of the order the 3 averments are referred to. There is a demand promisory note executed by the Managing Director of the applicant company. In addition he gave personal guarantee. The respondent company acknowledged its liability and forwarded a cheque in the sum of Rs.4,97,450/-. That payment did not cover the entire liability and arrears remained and that is how petition was filed. 3. Mr.Jha submits that there are arguable points including with regard to maintainability of petition. Statutory notice is not served at the registered address. In such circumstances, opportunity be given to contest the claim. 4. Having perused the application and the annexures thereto, in my view, considering the fact that no steps were taken by the company to file any reply and dispute the claim despite demise of its Advocate as early as in 2002, it cannot be said that this Court was in error in 4 proceeding ex parte. Further it cannot be said straight away that there are no lapses on the part of applicant. The order can be set aside by putting the applicant to terms. In such circumstances, interest of justice would be sub-served if the order dated 10th January 2008 is quashed and set aside, subject to applicant depositing a sum of Rs.5 lakhs in this Court within eight weeks from today. Needless to state that in default the order winding up the applicant company stands and, thereafter the O.L. can proceed in accordance with law. Upon compliance, the order of winding up shall stand quashed and set aside and the petition to then stand restored to file. It is clarified that deposit is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both sides. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. Company Application disposed off in the above terms. 5 (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)