Vidhya Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd. vs Ms Marine micro tech Inc. Ltd. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Vidhya Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd. vs Ms Marine micro tech Inc. Ltd. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Leave granted to amend the prayer clause (amendment within two weeks); delay in taking out the Interim Application condoned; order dated 15th June 2017 dismissing Company Petition No. 595 of 2007 for non-prosecution recalled; Company Petition restored to file and listed for further consideration on 16th July 2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay in taking out the Interim Application seeking recall of the order dated 15th June 2017 should be condoned. +2 more

Court's answer

There is sufficient explanation for the delay in taking out the Interim Application, as the petitioning creditor-Company was under liquidation and came out of liquidation only in 2024; the delay is therefore condoned.

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 15th June 2017 passed in Company Petition No. 595 of 2007 dismissing the Company Petition for non-prosecution is recalled and the Company Petition is restored to file.

Key takeaways

With the Company Petition dismissed for non-prosecution, the only relief grantable at this stage is condonation of delay and restoration of the Company Petition; directions in favour of the petitioning creditor as regards the assets of the company under liquidation can be granted only after a fresh order of winding up is passed.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim Application (L) No. 37013 of 2024 in Company Petition No. 595 of 2007 — application by original petitioning creditor (Vidhya Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd.) seeking recall of order dated 15th June 2017 dismissing the Company Petition for non-prosecution, and particulars of assets of the company under liquidation taken over by the Official Liquidator — winding up of the Respondent Company had been ordered on 7th August 2014 with the Official Liquidator appointed; on the Company's application, the winding up order was recalled, the Company Petition restored and the Official Liquidator discharged by order dated 3rd February 2017 — the petitioning creditor thereafter faced insolvency proceedings before the NCLT, which stand disposed of, the Company having come out of liquidation only in 2024 — Official Liquidator discharged and papers and proceedings not traceable — Held: (i) the delay in taking out the Interim Application is sufficiently explained and condoned; (ii) the order of 15th June 2017 is recalled and the Company Petition is restored to file; (iii) directions regarding the assets of the company under liquidation can be granted only after a fresh order of winding up is passed — leave granted to amend the prayer clause — Company Petition listed for 16th July 2025 (Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.; corrected order in terms of speaking-to-minutes order dated 16-7-2025).

5 Ia(L)-37013-2024.doc

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

INTERIM APPLICATION [L] NO. 37013 OF 2024 IN

COMPANY PETITION NO. 595 OF 2007

Vidhya Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd. ...Applicant. Versus M/s. Marine Micro Tech INC Ltd. ...Respondent.

Mr. Swaraj Jadhav for the Applicant. Ms. Apurva Thipsay for Official Liquidator.

——————

Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : June 26, 2025.

P. C. :

1. At the outset, Mr. Jadhav, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant seeks leave to amend the prayer clause so as to seek recall of the order dated 15^th June 2017 passed in Company Petition No.595 of 2007. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks.

2. Interim Application has been preferred by the original petitioning creditor seeking recall of the order of 15^th June 2017 by which the Company Petition came to be dismissed for non prosecution.

3. Mr. Jadhav, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that by order of 7^th August 2014, this Court had ordered winding up of the Respondent No.1-Company and had appointed the Official Liquidator. He submits that on 7^th November 2014, the Respondent No.

[This is the Corrected Order in terms of speaking to minutes order dtd 16-7-2025] Patil-SR 1 of 3

5 Ia(L)-37013-2024.doc

1-Company filed a Company Application seeking recall of ex parte winding up order and by order dated 3^rd February 2017 this Court recalled the order of winding up and restored the Company Petition to file and discharged the Official Liquidator.

4. He would submit that the Applicant–Company was facing winding up proceedings before this Court since 2015 and before the NCLT, which has now been disposed of. The Applicant is now out of insolvency proceedings. He submits that thereafter communication has been established with the office of Official Liquidator to inquire about assets of the company, however, there was no response from the Official Liquidator and details as to assets of the company under liquidation which were taken over by the Official Liquidator are not available. He submits that delay in taking out the present Interim Application for recall of the order be condoned.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator submits that Official Liquidator has been discharged by order of 2017 and at present the papers and proceedings are not traceable. She would further submit that in view of the recall of the ex parte order, only the Company Petition can be restored and no relief can be granted as regards furnishing the details about the assets of the Company under liquidation.

6. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

[This is the Corrected Order in terms of speaking to minutes order dtd 16-7-2025] Patil-SR 2 of 3

5 Ia(L)-37013-2024.doc

7. It is an undisputed position as pleaded by Mr. Jadhav that the order of winding up of Respondent-Company was recalled by order of 3^rd February 2017. In view of the recall, the Company Petition will have to be heard in order to consider whether the order of winding up can be passed in respect of the Respondent-Company. It is only after the order of winding up has been passed that further directions can be granted in favour of the petitioning creditor as regards the assets of the company under liquidation.

8. Today the position that stands is that Company Petition has been dismissed for non prosecution and the only relief which can be granted is condoning the delay and restoring the Company Petition to file.

9. As far as delay is concerned, there is sufficient explanation in the Application as the petitioning creditor-Company was under liquidation and it is only in the year 2024, that the petitioning Company has come out of liquidation. In view of the sufficient explanation, delay in taking out present Application is condoned. The order of 15^th June 2017 passed in Company Petition No. 595 of 2007 dismissing the Company Petition for non prosecution is recalled. Company Petition is restored to file.

10. List the Company Petition for further consideration on 16^th July 2025 .

[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

[This is the Corrected Order in terms of speaking to minutes order dtd 16-7-2025] Patil-SR 3 of 3

Signed by: Sachin R. Patil Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 21/07/2025 20:26:03