Company petition for admission was dismissed because neither the petitioner nor its advocate was present in court despite time extensions.
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.
17.CP-73-2008
1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY PETITION NO.73 OF 2008
Indian Structural Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. ….Petitioner Vs.
Tata Steel Limited ….Respondent
None for the petitioner.
Mr. Cyrus Bharucha a/w. Ms. Bhavna Singh and Mr. Vaibhav Sharma i/b. Mulla & Mulla & CBC for the respondent.
CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J DATE : 01st FEBRUARY, 2016
P.C.:-
1 On 4th January, 2016 the matter was stood over to 11th January, 2016 at the request of the petitioner. It was also made clear that no further time will be granted to the petitioner on any ground whatsoever as the petition is of the year 2008.
2 On 11th January, 2016 the counsel for the petitioner again
took time saying that he is unable to trace the records in his office and also has not been receiving instructions in the matter. The matter was thereafter stood over to 27th January, 2016 after making it clear that no further time will be granted and the petition will be dismissed, if the petitioner does not go on with the matter.
Gauri Gaekwad
17.CP-73-2008
2/2
(K.R.SHRIRAM,J)
Gauri Gaekwad
Indian Structural Engineering Co. (P) Ltd.
Tata Steel Limited
K.R.SHRIRAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
