OJA/720/2007 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD O.J.APPEAL No. 7 of 2007 In COMPANY PETITION No. 241 of 2004 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14 of 2007 In O.J.APPEAL No. 7 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Sd/- HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA Sd/- ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment? NO 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ========================================================= M/S. GEETA PRINTS LTD. - Appellant(s) Versus M/S. UNIVERSAL ENETERPRISE - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR DD VYAS, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR DHAVAL D VYAS for Appellant(s) : 1, MR AL SHAH WITH MR VIMAL M PATEL AND MR PS PURANI for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA Date : 19/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT OJA/720/2007 2/3 JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA) 1 It is an admitted position between the parties that the fact situation in the present Appeal is similar to one recorded in O.J. Appeal No.6 of 2007 between M/s. Geeta Prints Limited Vs. M/s. Falcon Industries. That the respective contentions raised in the said Appeal are equally raised herein. Hence, for the sake of brevity the same are not repeated here. 2 The only distinguishing feature, if one may term the same to be a distinguishing feature, is the fact that there is no communication as was there in earlier O.J. Appeal No. 6 of 2007 (communication dated 24.5.2004) and that there is no confirmation of account. As against that it is an admitted position that no dispute was raised at any point of time by respondent company nor was the statutory notice replied to, nor did respondent company make any arrangement to discharge its liability. 3 Hence, for the reasons recorded in judgment and OJA/720/2007 3/3 JUDGMENT order of even date in O.J. Appeal No. 6 of 2007, this Appeal and corresponding Civil Application No. 14 of 2007 are dismissed and rejected respectively. Sd/- Sd/- (D.A. Mehta, J.) (B.N. Mehta, J.) M.M.BHATT