1 36 ca 128.2010.odt srk- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 128 OF 2010 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 134 OF 2000 Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd. .. Applicants (Original Petitioners) Mr. Chetan Kapadia a/w Mr. Devesh Juvekar i/b M/s. Khaitan & Co. for the Applicants. Mr. R.A. Kapadia, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. A.G. Damle for the Respondent-S.V.C. Superchem Ltd. CORAM : S. J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 8th April, 2010 P.C.: 1 By this Company Application the Applicant (Petitioner) has prayed for condonation of delay of 462 days in filing the Company Application and to recall the order dated 24th October, 2008 passed in Company Petition No. 134 of 2000 and restore the said Petition to file. 2 The Company Petition had appeared before this Court (Coram: A.M.Khanwilkar,J.) on 24th October, 2008, when the Court passed the following order: "Service of notice under Rule-28 is dispensed with as the Advocate for the respondent company waives notice. Neverthless, petitioner will have to take steps to issue 2 36 ca 128.2010.odt advertisement if already not done and file affidavit of publication on or before 14 th November, 2008 failing which petition to stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court. Advertisement is required to be issued. That be published in Free Press Journal, Mumbai Edition (English) and Maharashtra Times, Mumbai Edition (Marathi). If affidavit of publication is filed in time, list the matter on 20 th November, 2008 as per its turn.” 3 The petitioner has taken out the above Company Application for reliefs as set out above after about 15 (fifteen) months. The reason for not complying with the conditional order passed by this Court is set out in paragraph 12 of the Affidavit in support of the Company Application which reads thus: “12. The Applicants submit that in view of the change of advocates and passage of several years in the meantime, the Applicants were unable to locate the newspapers and the Gazette proving publication of advertisement of the admission of the Petition. It is submitted that hence there was a delay in tracing the same to comply with the order of this Hon’ble Court as also a delay of 462 days in filing the present application.” 3 36 ca 128.2010.odt 4. This court enquired from the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, why on 24 th October, 2008, when the above order was passed, the petitioner had not informed the court that the Advertisements were already issued but the Petitioner was unable to locate the newspapers and the relevant Gazette. In response, this Court was informed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that on 24 th October, 2008 when the above order was passed, the petitioner was not sure, whether the Advertisements were infact issued and therefore the petitioner was unable to make any statement with certainty. 5 The petitioner in its affidavit has not mentioned, what efforts the petitioner had undertaken to locate the news papers after the order dated 24 th October, 2008 was passed, and most importantly when exactly the said news papers were located. Though, on 24 th October, 2008 the Petitioner was admittedly unsure of the fact, whether the advertisements were at all issued after the order of admission, the petitioner has also not explained as to why the Petitioner did not implement the later part of the order passed by this Court on 24th October, 2008, namely, a direction to advertise the admission of the Petition in Free Press Journal and Maharashtra Times. 6. In view thereof, the Petitioner has not given any particulars as to when the newspapers were located. The petitioner has also not given any reason as to why the admission of the petition was not advertised as directed by this Court in the later part of its order, more so when the 4 36 ca 128.2010.odt petitioner was not sure since 24 th October, 2008, whether the admission of the petition was at all advertised. The petitioner was also well aware that if an Affidavit proving publication is not filed by 14 th November, 2008 the Company Petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to this Court. The Petitioner has therefore not shown any cause, much less sufficient cause, to condone the delay and restore the petition which stood dismissed since 14 th November, 2008. I am convinced that the Petition has stood dismissed only because of the careless and irresponsible conduct on the part of the petitioner. Such irresponsible conduct is one of the major factors which causes grave delay in disposal of matters and consequently adds to the ever increasing back log of matters. If such Applications, completely lacking in bonafides are favourably entertained there shall be no deterrent on such erring and irresponsible behaviour. In any event, the Petitioner has already filed a suit against the Respondent-Company as regards the subject matter of the Company Petition. I am therefore of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case as to why the Company Application be allowed by this Court. In view thereof, balance of convenience is also not in favour of the Petitioner but is in favour of the Company. 7. Under the circumstances, the Company Application is dismissed with costs. (S. J. KATHAWALLA, J.)