1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION NO.1633 OF 2008 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.402 OF 2001 ICICI Ltd. ..Petitioner V/s. Jog Engineering Ltd. ..Respondent. And Asset Reconstruction Company(India) Ltd...Applicant. Mr.Sawmya Srikrishna a/w.Mr.Aditya Mehta i/b.A.A. Manngaldas & S.A.Shroff & Co. for petitioner. Mr.M.P.S.Rao a/w Mr.Sandeep Bhimekar i/b. Wadia Gandhy & Co. for Respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J A.M.KHANWILKAR,J A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE DATE DATE : DECEMBER 19, 2008. : DECEMBER 19, 2008. : DECEMBER 19, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. This Application is opposed by the Respondent company essentially on the argument that there is inordinate and unexplained delay of almost six years in filing of the present Application. Indeed, no explanation has been offered in that behalf in the affidavit in support of the application. However, in view of the stand taken by the Respondent, the Applicants have filed further affidavit dated 8th December, 2008 which offers explanation for delay in 2 filing present proceedings. Reference can be usefully made to paragraphs 5 to 7 of the said affidavit which discloses that other proceedings were pending against the Respondent in which Consent Terms were filed. It is only when the Respondent defaulted in discharging their obligations under the said Consent Terms, the Applicant was left with no option but to pursue the present proceedings. The explanation so offered in my opinion is sufficient cause to excuse delay of six years in the fact situation of the present case. In the circumstances, Application is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (c). 3. Counsel for the Respondent submits that if the Court is inclined to show indulgence to the Applicant, may impose cost for showing such indulgence. Since I have already taken the view that the explanation offered by the Applicant is sufficient cause and it is necessary in the interest of justice to condone the delay, the question of imposing cost on the Applicant does not arise. Accordingly, the Application is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (c). Amendment be carried out within three weeks from today. Petition be listed on 16th January, 2009 under caption "direction". 3 4. It is made clear that this order is not an expression of opinion either way on the merits of the contentions available to the parties in the main proceedings. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)