1 wp7340.10-7347.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 7340 of 2010 Mr. Bhushan Chandrakant Shah & anr. ... Petitioner v/s. The SICOM Limited ... Respondent WITH Writ Petition No. 7347 of 2010 (not on Board) Mr. Mohan Sumatilal Shah & ors. ... Petitioner v/s. The SICOM Limited ... Respondent Mr. S.S.Shah for the petitoner. Ms.Jaymala Raut i/b. Jurisconsultus for respondent. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- APRIL 08, 2011. P.C. By way of present petitions, the petitioners challenge the order dated 6th August, 2010 vide which the application filed by the respondents 2 and 4 for accepting the written-statement and setting aside the order of no written-statement, came to be rejected. 2. Shri Shah, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that since the application in question by the respondent SICOM is 2 wp7340.10-7347.10.sxw under the provisions of Section 31(1)(aa) of the The State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity), the petitioners were under the bonafide impression that unless the notice was issued to the petitioners under Section 32 (1) (a) of the said Act and unless the order was passed after the notice, it was not necessary for the petitioners to file written statement. 3. The learned Counsel for the respondents on the contrary submits that the contention in that regard is totally unsustainable inasmuch as the notice was already issued by the learned District Judge in the proceedings filed by the respondent SICOM. 4. It can thus clearly be seen that the delay in filing the written- statement appears to be on account of an interpretation of provision of Section 31 read with Section 32(1)(a) of the said Act. It cannot be thus said that there is any deliberate or willful attempt on behalf of the petitioners in not filing the written-statement within the stipulated period. 5. Insofar as the prejudice that is caused to the respondent is concerned, that can be compensated by saddling cost. 3 wp7340.10-7347.10.sxw 6. In that view of the matter, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). However, the same shall be subject to cost quantified at Rs. 25,000/- in each petition. The cost be deposited in the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today. On deposit of the cost the respondent SICOM would be at liberty to withdraw the same. The deposit of cost in the aforesaid period is a condition precedent for allowing the petitions. On failure to deposit the cost within the period prescribed, the petitions shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. (B.R. GAVAI, J)