Counsel argued that the applicant paid fees for company petitions but could not provide instructions due to a long delay, leading to a default order. The court allowed the applications and restored the petitions for hearing on merits.
Company Petition Nos. 57 & 58 of 2008 are restored and listed for hearing on 15.11.2019.
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.
Comp.A.Nos.482 & 483 of 2018
in
Comp.A.Nos.482 & 483 of 2018
C.P.Nos.57 & 58 of 2008
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.
By earlier order dated 25.10.2019, the Registry was directed to print
the name of the Respondent in the cause list, in view of the fact that the Respondent was served by substituted service, but there was no appearance for the Respondent. The name of the Respondent is printed in the cause list
today. But, once again, there is no appearance for the Respondent.
Therefore, the present applications are taken up for hearing.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant in these two
applications submits that the Respondent Company had paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in each of the company petitions by way of demand draft dated 26.06.2009 and that to the best of the knowledge of the applicant, the
petitions were not listed thereafter for about seven years. It was further submitted that when the Company Petitions were listed on 24.01.2018 and 27.01.2018, instructions could not be provided by the applicant to the counsel
and, that, in such circumstances, the impugned order dated 28.02.2018 was passed. Therefore, the present applications are filed to set aside the common
1 Of 3 http://www.judis.nic.in
Comp.A.Nos.482 & 483 of 2018
order dated 28.02.2018 in Company Petition Nos.57 & 58 of 2008 and to restore
the same on file.
3.Upon considering the oral submissions of the learned counsel for the
applicant and on examining the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the said Applications, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case
to allow the present Applications so as to restore the company petitions and
thereafter decide the same on merits.
4.Consequently, both these applications are allowed and Company
Petition Nos.57 & 58 of 2018 are restored. The Registry is directed to list the
said Company Petitions for hearing on 15.11.2019 along with any application filed in this connection.
5.List the case on 15.11.2019.
rrg
2 Of 3 http://www.judis.nic.in
Comp.A.Nos.482 & 483 of 2018
rrg
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.
Comp.A.Nos.482 & 483 of 2018
in
C.P.Nos.57 & 58 of 2008
08.11.2019
3 Of 3 http://www.judis.nic.in
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applications to set aside the order of default and restore the company petitions should be allowed given the applicant's inability to provide instructions despite payment of fees.
Whether the impugned order dated 28.02.2018 requiring restoration of Company Petitions Nos. 57 & 58 of 2008 can be successfully challenged.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Applicant
The Respondent Company
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
