1 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 423 OF 2010 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 1015 OF 2008 Harendra Singh Bisht .. Petitioner Versus M/s Crown Maritime Co. (I) Ltd. .. Respondent And: Mr. Bobby Samual .. Applicant Vs. Official Liquidator .. Respondent Mr. Pankaj Vijayan i/by M/s Interlegal for the Applicant Dy. O. L. Present Mr. Prakash Shenai C.A. of decree holder present. CORAM : S. J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 3rd September, 2010 P.C.: 1. By this Company Application, the Applicant Company – M/s Crown Maritime Co.(I) Ltd. seeks recall/setting aside of the orders dated 3.4.2009 and 18.3.2010 passed in Company Petition No. 1015 of 2008. 2. By an order dated 3.4.2009, the Company Petition was admitted and advertised. On 18 th March, 2010 the Company was ordered to be wound up. Thereafter, the Respondent Company approached the Petitioner for settlement 2 and has deposited an amount of Rs. 6 lacs in Court. In view thereof, the Petitioner agreed to withdraw the Company Petition. However, by an order dated 10th June, 2010, the Petitioner was directed to advertise the said settlement/ withdrawal. 3. Pursuant to the said advertisement, a claim to the tune of Rs.15 crores is received from a decree holder. I am informed by the Official Liquidator that the Income Tax Authorities have a claim to the tune of Rs.15.49 crores and he has also received claims from certain unsecured creditors to the tune of Rs. 31 lacs. 4. Mr. Vijayan appearing for the Applicant Company states that the decree against the Applicant Company is passed ex-parte and if the winding up order against the Applicant Company is stayed the Company will move for setting aside the same. The decree holder who is present in Court states that the statement made by the Advocate for the Applicant is incorrect and the Applicant was represented when the decree was passed. However, since the Applicant had not filed its say for a period of 8 years and was not ready to go on with the matter, the Court was constrained to pass the decree. 5. In view of the aforestated facts, this Court inquired from the learned Advocate for the Applicant whether the Applicant was willing to deposit any amount towards the claims received from the creditors of the Applicants, to which he has answered in the negative. In view thereof, the question of 3 granting stay or setting aside the orders dated 3.4.2009 and 18.3.2010 does not arise. 6. The Company Application is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (S. J. KATHAWALLA, J.)