((-1-)) MST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION NO.336 OF 2008 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.773 OF 2000 Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. Petitioner and Sanjay G. Khanvilkar and others Applicants versus Official Liquidator (Provisional Liquidator) of M/s.Nisarga Forest (I) Ltd. Respondent Gauri Jadhav for petitioner. Shakuntala Joshi for petitioning creditor. S.Ramakanta, Dy.O.L.present. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATE : 18th March 2008 PC : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. I am in agreement with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that this application is ill-advised. In fact, it is abuse of process of Court. This is so because the correctness of order dated 19th April 2007 was questioned by the applicant before the Division Bench in Appeal No.673 of 2007 which was withdrawn on 20th February 2008 with liberty to adopt appropriate ((-2-)) MST proceedings. Indeed, present application has been filed in view of the said liberty. However, the fact remains that the order dated 19th April 2007 has been confirmed by me on 25th January 2008. Counsel for the applicant would, however, contend that the applicant has no notice about the Official Liquidator’s Report dated 1st June 2007 for which reason even if order was passed on 25th January 2008, the same will be of no avail and the grievance made in this application in the context of order dated 19th April 2007 be considered on its own merits. 2. This submission has been rightly countered by the counsel for the petitioner relying on the order passed by this Court on 26th July 2007 and 6th September 2007 which clearly indicates that the applicant was represented by advocate on those days when the subject Official Liquidator’s Report dated 1st June 2007 was taken up for consideration. The applicant sought adjournment on the relevant dates which pre-supposes that the applicant was fully aware about the reliefs claimed by the Official Liquidator and the consequences of granting that relief. Suffice it to observe that the applicant has intentionally not disclosed these facts in the application ((-3-)) MST which is good ground for dismissal of this application. Hence, dismissed. 3. In view of this order, the Official Liquidator will be free to proceed against the applicant or any other person for effectuating the order passed below Official Liquidator’s Report dated 1st June 2007. 4. At this stage counsel for the applicants submits that operation of this order be stayed for four weeks. I see no propriety in accepting this request having regard to the finding reached in this application against the applicants that present application is abuse of process of Court. Request rejected. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)