1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Civil Application No.5461 of 2008 In First Appeal Stamp No.25561 of 2008 With Civil Application No.5462 of 2008 And Civil Application No.5582 of 2008 In First Appeal Stamp No.25547 of 2008 M/s.Kanchan Wooltex Pvt.Ltd. Applicant Vs. M/s.Bhilosa Tex-N-Twist Pvt.Ltd. Respondent Mr.Kishor Patil for applicant. Mr.Madhur Baya for respondent. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & D.G.KARNIK,JJ. March 4, 2009. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr.Patil, the learned counsel for the applicant - company. These applications are for condonation of delay in filing the First Appeals. As per the office note the appeals are beyond time by one year and 212 days. 2. The respondent has filed affidavit-in-reply and has opposed these applications stating that the applicant has failed to make out good and sufficient reasons to condone the delay. 2 3. We have noted that Special Civil Suit No.42 of 2002 which was filed by the plaintiff against the applicant for recovery of an amount of Rs.9,56,766/-, came to be decreed partly on 20/12/2006 and even counter claim made by the applicant company also came to be rejected. The reason for condonation of delay has been set out in para 7 of the applications and in the following words, "... However, there has been a delay in filing the same. The applicant states that after the impugned order came to be passed, they were terribly upset and could not come to terms with the aforesaid order. The Applicant were also not aware of the fact that they had a remedy of challenging the same in the higher forum by way of an appeal in this Hon’ble Court. The applicant although sought legal advice were misinformed and they were not aware that time limit is also prescribed for challenging the impugned order. The said delay was therefore inadvertent and unintentional and the same is therefore required to be condoned in the interest of justice. Otherwise the Applicant 3 shall suffer an irreparable harm, loss and prejudice which cannot be compensated..." 4. The applicant is a registered Private Limited Company under the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at Bhilwara. It was represented before the trial Court through an Advocate. The appeals have been filed with inordinate delay of one year and 212 days. The reason of ignorance of law about the remedy of appeal and taken up that too by a company, cannot be, in our considered opinion, a good and sufficient reason to condone the delay in the facts and circumstances of this case. 5. Hence the applications are hereby rejected. Consequently registration in the appeals is refused. 6. Civil Application No.5582 of 2008 does not survive and the same stands rejected. (D.G.KARNIK,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)