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.1195 OF 2008 IN COMPANY APPLICATION NO.1272 OF 2007 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.642 OF 1983 Ranganath Basudev Somani & Ors. ..Petitioners. V/s. Official Liquidator & Anr. ..Respondents. And Parasmal Manhormall Lodha & Anr. ..Applicants. Mr.Dinyar Madon, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Cyrus Ardheshir with Mr.Rahul Dwarkadas i/b. M/s.Dave & Co. for applicants. Mr.D.H.Mehta i/b. A.M.Saraogi for respondent No.1. Mr.S.M.Dharap for Respondent No.2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J A.M.KHANWILKAR,J A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE DATE DATE : OCTOBER 10, 2008. : OCTOBER 10, 2008. : OCTOBER 10, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings and documents on record. 2. After having perused the Order of the Apex Court dated 16th August, 2007 in Civil Appeal Nos.3179-3181 of 2005 there is hardly any doubt that the intervention application preferred by the applicants was rejected by the Supreme Court. This position was never brought to the notice of this Court. On the other hand, in paragraph-3 of the Application filed before this Court being Company 2 Application No.1272 of 2007, it is asserted that the Applicants were directed to appear before the Company Court on the basis of which observation, the Application was presented before this Court. No such order passed by the Apex Court is produced even now. In fact, no such order was annexed to the Company Application No.1272 of 2007. It necessarily follows that the relevant and material fact that similar attempt made by the Applicants before the Apex Court for intervention in the main proceedings having been rejected was suppressed before this Court. 3. I am also in agreement with the submission canvassed on behalf of the present Applicants/- original Petitioners that no affidavit of service was filed so as to place on record that the Petitioners were duly served by the Applicants in Company Application No.1272 of 2007. Obviously, I proceeded to pass the Order on 28th March, 2008 on the representation made that the concerned parties that the Petitioners were duly served. Reply filed on behalf of the Applicants to justify the fact that the Petitioners were duly served is absolutely vague and misleading. In paragraph-3 of the reply affidavit dated 20th August, 2008, the Applicants have asserted that the Company had gone into liquidation and all the parties were represented by the Office of the 3 Official Liquidator for which reason papers were forwarded to the respective parties by Advocate’s letter dated 8th February, 2008, which was to be treated as good service on the Petitioners. The fact that Company was ordered to be wound up and Official Liquidator appointed, by no standard would result in a situation where the service on Petitioners would stand dispensed with. The Official Liquidator was appointed in relation to the Company ordered to be wound up and not to represent the cause of the Petitioners before this Court. 4. Suffice it to observe that the Order passed by me on March 28, 2008 was on account of misrepresentation made by the Applicants on the aforesaid aspects. As a result, such order cannot be allowed to stand even for a minute. 5. Accordingly, the said Order is recalled forthwith and instead the Application No.1195 of 2008 in Company Application No.1272 of 2007 is dismissed by imposing exemplary cost on the Applicants therein quantified at Rs.7,500/- to be paid to the present applicants/Petitioner within one week from today. Ordered acordingly. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)