1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BEN CH : NAGPUR C.M.P.NO.10/2005 (In the matter of M/s. Pratapee Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JANUARY 29, 2010. Heard Shri D.V. Dhondarkar, learned counsel for petitioner, Mrs. Khade, learned Counsel for applicants in the matter and Shri S.K. Mishra, learned A.S.G.I. for Regional Director. Question is – Whether the order of this Court dated 13.02.2009 has been complied with or not ? Learned Counsel has invited attention to the affidavit filed vide Stamp No. 2219/2009. He states that payments reflected in Annexure-I therewith have been effected. He has been asked to state the figure of alleged repayment disclosed in paragraph no.7 of the application. The payments made in C.A.L.No.10/2005 is about Rs. 45 lakhs and in C.A.L. No.11/2005 is about Rs. 30 lakhs. The learned counsel states that in affidavit the figures given are rough, but exact figure is given in Annexure-I. 2 Orders dated 13.02.2009 require the Directors of the Company to file their personal affidavits disclosing the state of affairs of the company, including the position of the Bank accounts and the cheques issued after last date i.e. till 20.02.2009. That compliance has not been done. Thus the order of this Court dated 13.02.2009 has not been complied with for last about one year. Shri Mishra, learned A.S.G.I. has also pointed out that the defects in the matter are pointed out in reply dated 26.06.2008 and this Court has already noted the some in the order dated 13.02.2009. There are several applications filed by the persons whose amount has been taken by the applicants/petitioners and they are insisting for early release of their payments. Mrs. Khade, has filed one application for opposing the request made by the applicant Company. I find that the proceedings are not being conducted bonafidely and as urged by Shri Khade, learned counsel are being used to defeat the other actions and payments. Annexure-I filed with Stamp No. 2219/2009 is also not properly certified and no responsibility on its strength can be fastened against the deponent. In this situation I am not inclined to admit the Company Petition. Company Petition is therefore, dismissed. No cost. JUDGE Rgd.