The single-judge Petitioner was absent and failed to comply with a prior direction to serve a notice, resulting in the dismissal of the Company Petition for want of prosecution on November 4, 2009.
The Company Petition was dismissed for want of prosecution.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J.
COMPANY PETITION NO.195 OF 2000
Bombay Merchantile Co-op. Bank Ltd. Versus
Ambica Texmech Manufacturers India Ltd.
...Petitioner.
...Respondent.
None for the Petitioner.
Mr.A.K.Singh i/b. S.D. Mishra for the Respondent.
CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
November 4, 2009.
P.C.:
On 21st September 2008, a Learned Single Judge issued a
direction to the effect that the Petitioner shall take steps for service of a notice under Rule 438 of the Company Court Rules and file an affidavit of service on or before 11th December 2008, failing which the petition shall stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court. The Court clarified that it was inclined to pass a conditional order since there was an office remark that no other Company Petition is pending against the Respondent-Company and no other claim has been received despite the publication of the Petition in 2001. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and
2
the Petitioner are absent. The Company Petition is dismissed for want
of prosecution.
Bombay Merchantile Co-op. Bank Ltd.
Ambica Texmech Manufacturers India Ltd.
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
