In an application seeking modification of a consent order to allow the provision of a bank guarantee instead of a cash deposit, the High Court of Bombay rejected the request, finding no reason for the modification, and dismissed the application.
Request to modify order to allow bank guarantee instead of cash deposit was denied.
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
jpc/-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 232 OF 2010
IN
COMPANY PETITION NO. 6 OF 2010
Press Kunj
.. Petitioner
Versus
Marksans Pharma Ltd.
.. Applicant Orig. Respondent
Mr. T. J. Pandian for the applicant Mr. Lancelot Leuis for the Respondent
CORAM : S. J. KATHAWALLA, J.
DATE : 6th May, 2010
P.C.:
1. By this application the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent Company seeks modification of the order dated 26th March, 2010 to the extent of allowing the respondent company to provide a Bank guarantee for the sum of Rs. 10 lacs instead of depositing the amount of Rs.10 lacs with the Prothonotory and Senior Master of this Court.
2. The said order dated 26th March, 2010 was passed by consent of the parties. The learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner has opposed the modification as sought. I see no reason why the said order
2
should be modified and the Company be allowed to furnish a Bank guarantee in respect of the amount ordered to be deposited by consent of the parties.
3. The application stands disposed of.
( S. J. KATHAWALLA, J.)
Press Kunj
Marksans Pharma Ltd.
S. J. KATHAWALLA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
