1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION NO.1423 OF 2008 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.318 OF 2005 Leela G. Nair. ..Applicant. V/s. Tradesvel Security Services Pvt.Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.K.K.V.Kurup for applicant. Mr.Denzil D’Mello for respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J A.M.KHANWILKAR,J A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE DATE DATE : NOVEMBER 17, 2008. : NOVEMBER 17, 2008. : NOVEMBER 17, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. I am in agreement with the objection taken by the Respondent that in the Application, as filed, no attempt has been made to explain as to what prevented the Petitioner or for that matter, the Petitioner’s advocate to appear before the Court on 11th August, 2005, when the matter was notified on board. On fair reading of the affidavit in support of the present application, one thing is certain that the Petitioner has complained about the mistake of the advocate. I may go to the extent of observing that it is a case of inaction of the advocate, which has resulted in dismissal of the Petition for non-prosecution and for 2 that matter, not taking out application for restoration with immediate dispatch. Even then, as the litigant should not suffer for the mistake of the advocate, in the interest of justice, the Application deserves to be allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 3. I am conscious of the fact that by restoration of Company Petition, it would result in revival of winding up action of the Respondent company, but the claim will have to be considered on its own merits. 4. For showing this indulgence, it is ordered that the Advocate on record for the Petitioner shall personally pay costs quantified at Rs.2,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee within one week from today. Payment of costs is condition precedent for allowing this application. 5. During the course of argument, Counsel for the Respondent-Company invited my attention to some averments made in Rejoinder affidavit, where personal allegations have been made against the advocate for the Respondent. Counsel for the Applicant has disputed that position. However, it is not necessary to go into the issues raised by the Applicant in the rejoinder affidavit, as the same has not been taken 3 on record. 6. The Application disposed of on the above terms. 7. If payment is made in time, Company Petition be listed for admission as per its turn on the date to be notified by the Company Registrar. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)