Dismissed

M/S. Viraj Electric Corporation v. M/S. Vhb Life Sciences Ltd. - U74900MH2007PLC171648

Bombay HC21 Jan 2014CP/306/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing a suit under a company order. The petitioner failed to file the suit within eight weeks and offered unconvincing medical grounds for the lapse. The court rejected the claim, noting the petitioner had ample time and trivialized the total inaction.

What the court decided

AI extract

1.By an order dated 27th September 2013, the company petition itself was disposed of. By that order the company agreed to deposit an amount of Rs.52,36,614/- with the Prothonotary and Senior Master. The Petitioner, who is the present applicant, was granted liberty to file a suit for recovery of the entire amount. That suit had to be filed within eight weeks from the date of the order.

2.At the time of disposal of the company petition, the petitioner made a specific request for withdrawal of part of the amount deposited. This request was accepted, and the petitioner was permitted to withdrawn an amount of Rs.45 lakhs, on his furnishing a bank guarantee in that amount.

3.There is no dispute that the amount directed to be deposited was deposited within time. The present application has been filed because the petitioner did not file his suit within the eight weeks’ granted to him by this Court. Mr. Parekh, learned Advocate for the petitioner, says that there is a very short delay of two days in filing the suit.

4.Mr. Modi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents points out that it is not so much question of a delay of one or two days simpliciter, but of the petitioners’ present application having the effect of taking away the respondents’ right to claim a refund of the amount deposited. In the order of 27th September 2013, a specific provision was made for refund of amount if the plaintiffs failed to file their suit in the time specified. The Company has, in fact, already applied for a refund. Mr. Modi’s submission is , in my view, well-founded.

5.The delay of which Mr. Parekh seeks condonation could only be granted for sufficient cause. Here, Mr. Modi draws attention to paragraph 4 of the affidavit in support of this application. In this paragraph, the applicant says that he could not file the application from 18th September 2013 to 26th September 2013 because of various health problems. In support of this, a medical certificate is

annexed at Exhibit-B to the affidavit in support. That medical certificate is of a much later date. It speaks of applicant requiring rest from 18th to 25th November 2013, (i.e., unrelated to the period in September 2013 when the applicant claims to have been unwell). It also mentions other health issues, not the ones cited by the petitioner in paragraph 4.

6.I do not think that sufficient cause made out for condonation of this delay. It is not, as Mr. Parekh contends, a delay of merely one or two days. The applicant had a clear two months to file his suit. His reasons for not doing so are unconvincing. In claiming that the delay is only one or two days, the applicant trivializes the fact that he took no steps for eight weeks, and that he has no explanation at all for this lassitude on his part.

7.At the hearing of this application, I made it clear that I would have been inclined to grant the applicant a partial relief, but on terms, by continuing the deposit made, provided the applicant did not apply for withdrawal of any part of the amount deposited. Mr. Parekh declined to accept this, maintaining that the delay was inconsequential, ought to be condoned and that his client should continue to be at liberty to withdraw Rs.45 lakhs on the conditions previously set out in the order on the Company Petition.

8.The order of the Company Petition was not open-ended. It did not give the petitioner infinite leeway. It demanded that the petitioner too act with despatch and promptitude. It gave him more than sufficient time to file his suit. There is no explanation at all why the petitioner/applicant did not act in time. The Company

M/S. Viraj Electric Corporation v. M/S. Vhb Life Sciences Ltd. - U74900MH2007PLC171648

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S. Viraj Electric Corporation v. M/S. Vhb Life Sciences Ltd. - U74900MH2007PLC171648

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.S.Shah, Prop.of M/S.Vimal Trading Co. Vs M/S. Vital Health Care Pvt.Ltd. - U24230MH1998PTC113058

Jehangir Wadia and 3 Ors. Vs Sears Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and 16 Ors.

Brijbhushan Singh Alias Babasingh Vs Nusli N. Wadia and Ors.

Canara Bank Vs the Official Liquidator, High Court of Bombay of M/S.Shree Ma Pharmachem Ltd.(in Liqn)

Ms. Veena Bakshi Vs in Depth Entertaining Arts Pvt. Ltd.

The Securities and Exchange Board of India Vs the Official Liqudator, High Court,Bombay of M/S.Sunchan Securities Ltd.