Dismissed

Mr.Vijay Vasant Dhavale v. M/S.Dolce Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC4 Mar 2014COAPP/9/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A company appeal was dismissed as the High Court held it was unnecessary to examine the merits. The Court ruled that under Section 10F of the Companies Act, the Company Court is not a first appellate court. Equitable relief was rightly denied due to the appellant's seven-year unexplained delay.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Mr.Vijay Vasant Dhavale Vs M/S.Dolce Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd and 3 Ors. — Bombay HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

23-COAPP9-14.DOC

¶2

Agk

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMPANY APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2014

¶4

Mr. Vijay Vasant Dhavale…Petitioners
Versus
M/s. Dolce Pharmaceuticals Private Limited & …Respondents
Others.

¶5

Mr. B.B. Parekh , for the Appellats. Mr. Sanjeev A. Sawant , for Respondents Nos. 1 and 3.

¶6

CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:4th March 2014

¶7

PC:-

¶8

1.The appeal is directed against an order dated 20th May 2013
of the Company Law Board. The appellant is the original petitioner.

¶9

2.It is not, in my view, necessary to examine the appellants'
case on merits. It must be borne in my mind that a Company Court
exercising jurisdiction under Section 10F of the Companies Act is
not a first appellate Court. There must be, before it, a question of
law. The impugned order in paragraph 21, and more particularly in
paragraph 22, holds that there is a gross, inordinate and
unexplained delay on the part of the petitioner / appellant himself.
This delay is not of few day or even a few months: it is of seven

¶10

1 of 2

¶11

23-COAPP9-14.DOC

¶12

years, if not more. On facts, the Company Law Board found no
explanation for this delay. It is on that basis that the Company Law
Board held that the petitioner is not entitled to any equitable relief.

¶13

3.In my view, it is impossible to find fault with the order under
appeal. I cannot re-appreciate the evidence that was before the
Board. I cannot substitute my own view for that of the Company
Law Board if the view of the Board is a plausible, possible view. In
the present case, the view of the Company Law Board is not only a
plausible and possible view: it is the only possible view, and one
with which I am in complete agreement. Courts of equity cannot be
converted into forums in which a party can, after an extraordinary
and unexplained delay, claim, as a matter of right, reliefs that would
on account of that delay be excessive, inequitable and unjust.

¶14

4.The appeal is without merit. It is dismissed. There will be no
order as to costs.

¶15

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶16

2 of 2

Mr.Vijay Vasant Dhavale v. M/S.Dolce Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Vijay Vasant Dhavale v. M/S.Dolce Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Airports Authority of India Vs O. L. H. C. of East West Travel and Trade Links Ltd. and 13 Ors.

M/S. SBI Global Factors Ltd. Vs the Official Liquidator, High Court Bombay

Abhishek Agarwal Vs Indian Bank and Ors.

Mr. Kiran Malhotra and Ors. Vs Aditiya Construction and Ors.

Sanjeev Verma and 1 Other Vs M/S Orbit Corporation Limited

Shalini Sumant Raut and 7 Ors. Vs Milind Sumant Raut and 7 Others