In the absence of the petitioner, the court dismissed the company petition based on want of prosecution.
The company petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O. O. C. J.
COMPANY PETITION NO.131 OF 1986
M/s. Microfinish Valves Pvt. Ltd.
..Petitioner.
Vs. M/s. Ballestra (I) Ltd. ..Respondent.
None for the Petitioner. Ms. Dorkas Jolnes for the Respondent.
CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
21st March, 2007.
P.C. :
The Petitioners and their advocates are absent.
Counsel appearing for the Respondent states that the instructions from the Respondent are to the effect that the claim has been duly settled. In any event, since the Petitioners are absent, it would be appropriate to dismiss the Petition for want of prosecution. The Petition is dismissed as such.
M/s. Microfinish Valves Pvt. Ltd.
M/s. Ballestra (I) Ltd.
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
