ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO. 636 OF NO. 636 OF NO. 636 OF 2007 2007 2007 IN IN IN NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3148 OF 2005 OF MOTION NO. 3148 OF 2005 OF MOTION NO. 3148 OF 2005 IN IN IN SUMMARY SUMMARY SUMMARY SUIT NO. 897 OF 1994 SUIT NO. 897 OF 1994 SUIT NO. 897 OF 1994 Bhasin Associates P. Ltd. ...Appellants. Vs. Brahma Consultants & Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondents. Mr. Prashant P. Kulkarni for Appellants. Mr. D.D.Madon, Senior Advocate i/by Simran Puri for Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 09TH JANUARY, 2008 : 09TH JANUARY, 2008 : 09TH JANUARY, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the Appellants and the learned counsel for the Respondents. By this Appeal, the Appellants are seeking to challenge the order dated 8th June, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge by the aforesaid order found that the Appellants had in fact taken a false stand, and had contended that Mr. Narinderjit Singh was the only person aware of the facts of the case. On the contrary, it appears that Mr.T.N.Ghosh was also having the knowledge of the ( 2 ) case. In any event, the Respondents was a company and any officer of the said company who was familiar with the facts of the case and could have taken steps to file an affidavit in reply within a period of ten days of service of the summons of judgment. There has been gross negligence on the part of the Appellants-Defendants and there was a substantial delay and the learned Single Judge was not inclined to grant any more time to the Appellants for filing affidavit in reply. When Appeal came up for admission on 7.1.2008, we made an enquiry with the Appellants whether any affidavit in reply seeking leave to defend the suit is ready. Even today, there is no affidavit seeking leave to defend the suit. 2. Over and above, we had asked the Appellants on 07/01/2008 whether they are ready to deposit at least Rs.50,00,000/- so as to enable them to defend the suit, and conditional leave being granted. The learned counsel for the Appellants stated today that the Appellants will not be able to deposit any amount. In the above facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Learned Single Judge as we do not find any error or illegality in the same. The Appeal stands dismissed. ( 3 ) (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)