1 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 443 OF 2005 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1251 OF 2005 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 744 OF 2004 M/s Colt Cables Pvt. Ltd. .. Appellant Versus M/s Kalpana Polytech India Ltd.. .. Respondent Shri Satish Shetye i/b Thak & Madgavkar, for the appellant Shri S. K. Jain for the Respondents CORAM: V. C. DAGA & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED: 17th August, 2009 P. C. 1. When the appeal was called out for hearing, it is brought to our notice that the Chamber Summons No. 1251 of 2005 filed by the appellant on 23rd September, 2005 is pending for consideration wherein prayer is made to to extend time to comply with the condition of the order passed by this Court on 13th June, 2005, which reads as under: During the course of motion hearing Mr. “ D.H. Mehta, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are ready and willing to deposit a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-lacs before this Court in four installments within a period of six months. 2 2. We accept the statement of the learned counsel for the appellants and in view thereof, we are satisfied that the appeal deserves to be admitted. 3. Admit. .....” 2. Both the parties agreed that even though the Chamber Summons No.1251 of 2005 is not shown on board, it may be taken up for hearing by consent of parties. Chamber summons is thus taken on board and heard finally by consent of parties. 3. Perused Chamber Summons along with affidavit annexed thereto. Factual matrix reveals that the appeal is filed against the order of the Single Judge of this Court passed on 21st April, 2005, where, the learned single judge found that the prima facie; case was made out to wind up the Company and went on to appoint the provisional liquidator in terms of prayer clause (C) with further direction to take appropriate steps in the matter. However, on the request made by the respondent (appellant herein), the order appointing provisional liquidator was stayed till 30th April, 2005. The company petition was made returnable a on 7.10.2005 4. Being aggrieved by he above order, the present appeal came to be filed to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21st April, 2005. 3 5. When the appeal came up for hearing on admission before the learned Division Bench of this Court on 13th June, 2005, the appellant itself expressed its willingness to deposit the sum of Rs.20 lacs in four installments within a period of six months. The statement made in this behalf was accepted and same was recorded in the order dated 13th June, 2005, extracted in the opening part of this order. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant brought to our notice that in compliance with the aforesaid order, Rs.5 lacs were deposited on 25th April, 2005, and thereafter, on 23rd September, 2005 the present chamber summons bearing No. 1251 of 2005 was filed, where under and whereby the extension of time is sought to comply with the order dated 13th June, 2005. The chamber summons is supported by an affidavit along with documents in support thereof. 7. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that the willingness on the part of the appellant itself to deposit the amount within a period of six months in four installments was recorded in the order dated 13th June, 2005. It is true that in part compliance of the order an amount of Rs. 5 lacs has been deposited by the appellant but thereafter no further amount was deposited though four years have expired. No doubt, the Chamber Summons is taken out to seek extension of time 4 but no steps were taken to seek appropriate order to seek extension of time to comply with the order dated 13th June, 2005. It is needless to mention that it was obligatory on the part of the appellant to get the appropriate order before expiry of the period mentioned in the order dated 13th June, 2005. Almost four years have passed, no order was obtained in the Chamber summons. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the matter was moved before the learned Single judge to seek extension of time is contrary to record. Nothing is available on record in this behalf. As a matter of fact, the appeal had appeared before the Division Bench for hearing on 4.3.2009, the appellant got it adjourned out of turn to 17.3.2009. The appellant could have taken appropriate steps during this period but he chose to keep the matter pending. No steps were taken almost till today to seek extension of time so as to comply with he order dated 13.6.2005. In other wards, the appellant had more than 4 years at its command from the date of the order dated 13th June, 2005 to comply with the order but no attempt was made in this behalf. On the contrary, out of turn adjournment was taken. Compliance of the order was systematically avoided by the appellant. 8. In the aforesaid view of the matter, when the matter was 5 called today, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that some reasonable time be granted to comply with the order. 9. In our considered view, prayer made is misconceived and not bonafide. Had the appellant wanted to comply with the order, it could not have applied for adjournment on earlier date. The appellant did not take any steps to get the matter circulated to seek extension of time. In this view of the matter, the Chamber Summons is rejected. 10. The appellant did not comply with the conditions of the order dated 13th June, 2005 which was recorded as per the willingness shown by the appellant itself. Having rejected the Chamber Summons, the appeal is also liable to be dismissed for want of compliance of the order dated 13th June, 2005. 11. In the result, the appeal is accordingly dismissed for the reasons recorded with no order as to costs. ( MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) ( V. C. DAGA, J.)