1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.200 OF 1974 M/s. T. Manek & Co. ..Petitioner. Vs. Kersous Mfg. Co. of India Ltd. ..Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.478 OF 1975 Century Enka Ltd. ..Petitioner. Vs. Cyma Exports (P) Ltd. & Ors. ..Respondents. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.441 OF 1976 Unnikrishnan Pisharody ..Petitioner. Vs. Uma Investments Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.895 OF 1976 Misrimal Navajee ..Petitioner. Vs. Kamani Engineering Corpn. Ltd. ..Respondent. WITH COMPANY PETITION NO.67 OF 1978 Patel Engineering Works ..Petitioner. Vs. Malabar Steamship Co. Ltd. ..Respondent. .... 2 CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 21st March, 2007. P.C. : This Petition has been placed together with a batch of Company Petitions in which the Petitions are reflected by the Board Department as having remained pending. The Record and Proceedings are not traceable in the registry. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is absent and there is no representation on behalf of the Petitioner. The Company Registrar informs the Court that these Petitions were notified on his Board in order to enable the Petitioners to furnish instructions on whether the Petitioners are desirous of pursuing the proceedings any further. Since Counsel appearing for the Petitioners are absent and no further instructions were forthcoming before the Company Registrar, it can be presumed that the parties have lost interest in the proceedings. In the circumstances the Company Petitions are dismissed for want of prosecution. In the event that the company has already been wound up, it is needless to add that it would be open to the Petitioners to pursue their claims in accordance with law. In the event that the 3 Petitioners are still interested in pursuing these proceedings, it would be open to them to apply before the Company Registrar within a period of four weeks from today for revival of the proceedings.