1 ca317&439.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION NO.317 OF 2011 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.438 OF 2010 ALONGWITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO.439 OF 2011 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.438 OF 2010 Natural Petrochemicals Pvt Ltd ..Applicant/ Org.Respondent versus Signet Overseas Ltd ..Respondent/ Org.Petitioner Ms.Ashwini Landge h/f Manoj Mhambrey for the applicant. Mr.Prakash Punjabi i/by P. Punjabi & Co for the respondent. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 11th November 2011. P.C.: Heard both sides. This is an application to set aside the ex-parte order passed against the original respondent-applicant. 2} It is stated in the affidavit in support that when the matter was placed before this Court on 25th March 2011, the respondent had engaged an advocate who was indisposed and, therefore, unavailable. 2 ca317&439.doc In the absence of the advocate and the company, an order was passed to the detriment of the company, imposing conditions. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the company may be permitted to place its version on merits or else grave and serious prejudice and loss will be caused to it. 3} It is stated that it was not the fault of the respondent-company, but, it was due to unavoidable reasons that none could appear and point out the case of the respondent-company. 4} On the other hand, Mr.Punjabi appearing for the original petitioner submits that this application seeks to recall an order passed on 25th March 2011. The application is belated as it is made on 9th May 2011. Subsequently, the company petition stood admitted and now this application cannot be entertained. 5} The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-original respondent states that there are two applications and both are to recall ex-parte order of admission of the petition for winding up. 3 ca317&439.doc 6} To my mind, in the peculiar facts of this case, the petitioner has proceeded against the respondent-company under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. Even an order admitting a company petition for winding up has serious consequences. In such circumstances, where an ex-parte order has been made and a request is made to recall the same due to the absence of the respondent or the respondents advocate, interest of justice will be served if the order dated 25th March 2011 and the subsequent order dated 10th June 2011, admitting the company petition, are both recalled and set aside, but, on the condition that the applicant pays costs quantified at Rs.20,000/- within a period of four weeks from today. If the costs are paid to the original petitioner's advocate within this period, the petition shall then be listed for “admission” after four weeks. If there is no compliance, these applications to stand dismissed without any further reference to the Court and thereafter the matter will proceed on the basis that the petition for winding up has been duly admitted by this Court. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)