Allowed

Stalian Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. Killick Halco Ltd.

Bombay HC20 Nov 2017CA/616/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay allowed the applicant's application to restore a dismissed company petition despite significant delay. The court granted indulgence for the non-payment of security money, provided immediate payment of increased funds to meet a specific deadline.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; petition restored subject to deposit of Rs. 25,000/- by 23rd November 2017.

Stalian Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs Killick Halco Ltd. — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

53.CA-616-2017.doc

¶2

1/2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

COMPANY APPLICATION NO.616 OF 2017 IN

¶5

COMPANY PETITION NO.616 OF 2016

¶6

M/s. Stalian Investment Pvt. Ltd. ….Applicant/Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Killick Halco Limited ....Respondent

¶9

Mr. Dharmesh Pandya i/b. Ashwin Pandya and Associates for applicant/ petitioner. Ms. Sangita R. Gudhka for respondent.

¶10

CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J. DATE : 20^th NOVEMBER, 2017

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1 Heard the counsel for applicant and also considered the

¶13

application. Though the prayer sought in the application is inappropriately worded, basically the application is for restoring the petition which came to be dismissed pursuant to a self operative order passed on 3^rd August, 2017. Petitioner was to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- within a period of three weeks from 3^rd August, 2017. The three weeks period expired on 24^th August, 2017. The application itself has been lodged only on 3^rd October, 2017, almost six weeks beyond the three weeks granted. From 3^rd October, 2017 till date another six weeks have passed and counsel for applicant is seeking two more weeks to make this payment of small amount of Rs.10,000/- without any reason as to why they did not take out this application earlier for extension. Moreover, the affidavit in support does not

Gauri Gaekwad

53.CA-616-2017.doc

2/2

have any explanation as to why this amount has not been paid except to state “the said sum of Rs.10,000/- remained to be sent to my Advocates …....... due to oversight and/or inadvertence …....”.

¶18

2 Though this is not a satisfactory explanation, purely by way of indulgence and in the interest of justice, the application is allowed and accordingly disposed.

¶19

3 It is made clear that the amount to be deposited with the Prothonotary and Senior Master will be Rs.25,000/- and this amount to be deposited on on before 23^rd November, 2017, failing which the petition will stand dismissed without further reference to this Court.

¶20

4 If the amount is paid, then the petition will stand restored and the returnable date will be extended to 12^th February, 2018.

¶21

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

¶22

Gauri Gaekwad

Stalian Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. Killick Halco Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Stalian Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. Killick Halco Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dattu Kisan Koli Vs the Official Liquidator of Hes Ltd. (in Liqn)

Harshada Kishore Vartak Vs the Official Liquidator of B.K. Paper Mills Ltd. (in Liqn.)

Sneha Sunil Jadhav Vs the Official Liquidator of B.K. Paper Mills Ltd. (in Liqn.)

Gavde Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Official Liquidator of Birla Surya

Gavin Sequeira and 35 Others Vs Gol Offshore Limited Cin No. L11200MH2005PLC154793

Vilas Raghunath Patil (Ex-Dir Soni Life Spaces and Infra Pvt. Ltd) Vs Pegasus Cor Construction Pvt.Ltd. and Soni Life Spaces and Infra Pvt. Ltd. (in Liqn.)