3.	Then	the	writ	petition	was	posted for
admission	on	12.	4.2005.	On that	day,	the learned
counsel	for		the	petitioners	aga	in sought
adjournment	on	the	ground	that	talks	of settlement
were	going	on	with	the respon	dent-bank.	However,
the	learned		counsel	for	the	respondent-bank
submitted	that		the	proposal	for	settlement
forwarded	by	the	petitioners	was	not	acceptable to

the	bank	and the lea	rned cou	nsel	for the	bank
opposed		the prayer for	adjournm	ent	made on	behalf
of	the	petitioners.	On that	day,	the	learned
counsel		for the petitioners	was	asked	to	proceed
with	the	matter but he	submitted	that	he was	not
ready	and	prayed for time.	It	was	observed	in the
order	that	the petitioners	were	not	serious	in the
matter		and were seeking	adjourn	ment	on one	ground
or	the	other. However,	in	the	interest	of
justice,		an opportunity by	way	of	last chan	ce was
given		to the learned	counsel	for	the	petitioners

subject to the cost of Rs.5000/-. The matter was, thus, adjourned for two weeks.

4.	The	matte	r aga	in came	up	before	the	court	on
26th	April,	20	05.	On th	at	day	also,	the	advocate
for	the	peti	tioners	prayed	for		time.		Despite
that,	by	order	date	d 12.4.20	05,	the	a	djournment	by
way	of	last	chance	was giv	en,	in	the	interest	of
justice.		One	mo	re opportu	nity	was	gra	nted t	o the
petitioners		and	matte	r was	adjo	urned	for	one	week
subject	to	payment	of	cost	of	Rs.20,0	00/-.	It	was
made	clear	in	the	order that	if	the	cost	was	not
paid	within	the		time as		directed	,	the	writ
petition		shall	sta	nd dismi	ssed	wit	hout		reference
to	court.		The	cost of	Rs.2	0,000/-	was	not	paid

and consequently, the writ petition came to be

dismissed.

5.	The	learned	counse	l	for	the	petitioners
submits	that	the	order	dated	26th	April,	2005
could	not	be	complied	with	as	the	petitioner

prolonging the matter. The application is not

bonafide and is dismissed.

(R.M. LODHA, J.)

¶29

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

M/S.Vakrangee Software Ltd. and Ors. v. Central Bank of India

Case brief