1 ca 3040-2010 gr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3040 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1784 OF 2010 Vasai Tobacco Pvt.Ltd. ...Applicant/ Orig.Respondent vs. M/s.D.Dahyabhai & Co.Pvt.Ltd. ...Respondent/ Orig.Petitioner WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3162 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1741 OF 2010 Bhawani Cigarettes Pvt.Ltd. ...Applicant/ Orig.Respondent vs. M/s.D.Dahyabhai & Co.Pvt.Ltd. ...Respondent/ Orig.Petitioner WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3041 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1784 OF 2010 Western Express Industries Ltd. ...Applicant/ Orig.Respondent vs. M/s.D.Dahyabhai & Co.Pvt.Ltd. ...Respondent/ Orig.Petitioner Appearance in above matters :- Mr.Pravin G. Sawant for the Applicants. 2 ca 3040-2010 gr Mr.Piyush Shah for the Respondent. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATED : JANUARY 17, 2011 P.C :- 1 This is an application for extension of period for depositing of the amount as was directed by this Court vide Order dated 31st August, 2010. This Court (Hon ble Shri Justice Bhatia, J.) vide Order dated 31st August, 2010 had directed the present applicant to deposit the arrears of the licence fees from 1st April, 2006 to 31st August, 2010 within two months from the date of the order and thereafter to pay the licence fees regularly every month. It was further directed that on the present applicant failing to deposit the amount, the defence of the applicant/defendant shall stand struck off under Order 15-A of the CPC. 2 It appears that the applicant could not make the payment within the stipulated period. He 3 ca 3040-2010 gr moved this Court and this Court vide Order dated 29th October, 2010 has extended the period by one month. As such, the period stands expired on 30th November, 2010. Now again all these three applications have been moved by these defendants for extension of period. It is submitted that the amount could not be paid since the talks for settlement were going on between the applicant and the non-applicant- plaintiff. 3 Today, an affidavit is also placed on record along with which a copy of the said purported MOU is annexed. It is the contention of the applicant that the said MOU has been signed by one Mubarak Hussain Mustaffa Hussain Shaikh and Mohammed Javed Mohammed Rafiq Shaikh. 4 Shri Shah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicant disputes any settlement talks. He submits that no such settlement talks were held between the parties. In any case, it is to be 4 ca 3040-2010 gr seen that the non-applicant is a private limited company. Unless it authorises a person on its behalf by duly passing a Resolution, no one can represent it. It is further to be seen that even in the cause title, the said non-applicant is represented by its authorised signatory Mr.Manohar M. Mhatre who has been authorised to represent under the Resolution dated 25th May, 2006. In that view of the matter, I find that the so called ground raised in the application is without any merit. The applicant was given sufficient opportunity by this Court to deposit the amount. Even, after the grant of extension by Order dated 29th October, 2010, the applicant has failed to abide by the orders passed by this Court. 5 Applications are, therefore, rejected. (B.R. GAVAI, J.)