:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 976 OF 2006 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 976 OF 2006 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 976 OF 2006 IN IN IN APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 224 OF 2006 APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 224 OF 2006 APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 224 OF 2006 M/s. Indorama Synthetics (India) Ltd. ..Appellants versus M/s. Sonu Synthetics Ltd. & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. B. Saraf with Mr. S. Jadhav i/b. ALMT Legal for the Appellant. Mr. D. D. Madon, Senior Advocate i/b. S. P. Bharti for the Respondents. CORAM : DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & S. J. VAZIFDAR, JJ. S. J. VAZIFDAR, JJ. S. J. VAZIFDAR, JJ. DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2006 DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2006 DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2006 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and the Respondents. There is delay of 24 days in filing the Appeal. Perused the Affidavit in Support of the Notice of Motion. For the reasons stated therein, sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay. There is no case of inaction, negligence and want of bonafide on the part of the Appellant. Hence, Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Notice of Motion disposed of accordingly. 2. However, we make it clear that reference to :2: Exhibit "B-20" made in paragraph 3 of the said Affidavit will be considered, if an appropriate application is made before this Court for producing the same. 3. Place the above Appeal on board for admission on 20.4.2006. 4. Statement made by the learned counsel for the Respondents on 31.3.2006 to continue till 24.4.2006. (DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ) (DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ) (DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ) (S. J. VAZIFDAR, J.) (S. J. VAZIFDAR, J.) (S. J. VAZIFDAR, J.)