The company application was dismissed for non-prosecution as the applicant failed to appear before the court despite being called over.
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.ca.196.2014.doc
dik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY APPLICATION NO.196 OF 2014 IN
COMPANY PETITION NO. 330 OF 2014
The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. ...Applicant/Petitioner vs Reid & Taylor (India) Ltd. ...Respondent
None for the Applicant/Petitioner Mr Aditya Singh i/b Little & Co. for the Respondent. Mr Mahendhar Aithe, co-prosecutor, OL present.
CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA J.
JUNE 15, 2016
P.C. :
When this Company Application was listed on the last occasion, namely, 8 June 2016 none had appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. In this view of the matter, the Company Application was directed to be listed today under the caption “ for dismissal” .
2 The board reflects that the Petitioner is represented by an Advocate. Even today when the matter is called out, none appears on behalf of the Petitioner. It appears that the Applicant /Petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the present Company
Pg 1 of 2
1.ca.196.2014.doc
Application.
3 In this view of the matter, the Company Application is
dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs.
( B. P. COLABAWALLA J. )
Pg 2 of 2
Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd.
Reid & Taylor (India) Ltd.
B. P. Colabawalla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
