1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi COMPANY APPLICATION NO.156 OF 2009 IN COMPANY APPLICATION NO.1591 OF 2008 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.845 OF 1998. ALONGWITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO.1591 OF 2008 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.845 OF 1998. Hemant Parshuram Puria, Director, M/s. Parasrampuria Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. .. Applicants. (Org. Respondents) vs. Splendour Investments Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent. (Org. Petitioner) And The Official Liquidator. ..Respondent. .... Mr. S.K. Chaurasia, i/b. A.M. Saraogi, for Applicant. .... CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 24TH JULY 2009. P.C. This application is taken out by the applicant for setting aside the order dated 11 th December 2008 dismissing company 2 application no.1591 of 2008 and for restoration of the said company application. The restoration is sought on the ground that the concerned clerk of the Advocate had not noticed the said matter on the notice board and the same came to be dismissed in default. The said clerk has filed his affidavit in support of the application. 2. In view thereof, company application 156 of 2009 is allowed and company application no.1591 of 2008 is restored to file and the same is taken up for hearing. 3. Company application no.1591 of 2008 is taken out for condonation of delay in complying with the order dated 25 th January 1999 passed in company petition no.845 of 1998, whereunder the company was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.31,61,507/-. The applicants have also subject to deposit of the amount sought recall and/or setting aside of the order dated 4 th August 2005 passed in company petition no.845 of 1998 admitting the said company petition. 4. The company petition was admittedly filed in the year 1998 against the applicant company on the ground that the company is 3 unable to pay its debt. It is also pointed out in the petition that in response to the statutory notice, the respondent-company admitted its liability to pay the amount claimed by the petitioner. Though the applicant company engaged an Advocate to defend the company petition, since none appeared for the applicant company, this Court by its order dated 25 th January 1999, directed the company to deposit a sum of Rs.31,61,507/- within 4 weeks from the date of filing of the order. The order was not complied with by the company. Thereafter, the petition was formally admitted on 1 st July 1999 and the petition was advertised on 3 rd July 1999 in daily newspaper “Free Press Journal” and in “Navashakti” on 8 th July 1999. Thereafter, on 4 th August 2005, this Court was pleased to allow the petition in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) and accordingly, the applicant company came to be wound up. 5. Company application no.1591 of 2008 was taken out in September 2008 to condone the delay in depositing the amount ordered by this Court on 25 th January 1999 that is after a period of 4 almost 9 years. The ground on which the condonation is sought after nine years is that the Advocate appearing for the applicant company had not bothered to appear before this Court because of which the ex- parte order was passed. The excuse given is false and can be straight away rejected, since in the affidavit in support of the application not even an attempt is made to explain whether the applicant company had made any attempt/s to inquire from their Advocate in the last 9 years as to what had happened to the winding up petition filed by the petitioner against the company, before this Court. In any event, the order dated 25 th January 1999 is nonest in view of the subsequent order dated 4 th August 2005, directing winding up of the company. The question therefore of condoning the delay and allowing the petitioner to implement the order dated 25 th January 1999 does not arise. 6. That a false case is made out in support of the application is further exposed by the fact that though the admission of the petition was advertised in 2 newspapers as far back as in July 1999, the 5 petitioner never thought it fit to respond to the said advertisement. No explanation whatsoever is found in the affidavit in support of the application, why the company did not respond to the said advertisement and failed to approach the Court immediately. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, company application no.1591 of 2008 is dismissed with costs. Both the company application nos. 156 of 2009 and 1591 of 2008 stands disposed of. [ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ]