Gujarat High Court High Court

Shardaben vs O.L on 12 March, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Shardaben vs O.L on 12 March, 2010
Author: M.R. Shah,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

COMA/462/2009	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

COMPANY
APPLICATION No. 462 of 2009
 

In


 

COMPANY
APPLICATION No. 389 of 2006
 

 
======================================


 

SHARDABEN
WD/O DHUPSINH CHARANSINGH & 5 - Applicants
 

Versus
 

O.L
OF ARYODAYA SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD. & 1 - Respondents
 

======================================
Appearance : 
MR
MK VAKHARIA for the Applicants. 
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
MS AMEE YAJNIK for Respondent(s) : 1, 
None
for Respondent(s) : 2, 
====================================== 

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
		
	

 

Date
: 12/03/2010 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

1. The
Present Judge’s Summons has been taken by the applicants by
submitting that delay, if any, [though admittedly there is delay of
approximately three years] in filing the present application for
modification of the order dated 29/09/2006 passed by this Court in
Company Application No.389 of 2006 may be condoned, as well as to
modify the order dated 29/09/2006 passed by this Court in Company
Application No.389 of 2006.

2. At
the outset, it is required to be noted that there is delay of
approximately three years in preferring the application for
modification/ review and except the vague averment in the application
that the applicant has now come to know that in an identical Company
Application No.36 of 2006 the learned Single Judge has passed the
order dated 24/02/2006 which has given rise to the present
application, nothing has been mentioned when they came to know and
how they came to know. Even otherwise, it is to be noted that Company
Application No.389 of 2006 was fully argued before this Court and,
thereafter, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants
sought permission to withdraw the said application and accordingly
the permission was granted to the applicants to withdraw the said
application. It is to be noted that at the relevant time, when
learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants withdrew the
said application on 29/09/2006, the order passed in Company
Application No.36 of 2006 was already there. Be that as it may, the
fact remains that the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
applicants withdrew the said application after arguing the matter,
there is no question of modification of the order dated 29/09/2006
passed by this Court in Company Application No.389 of 2006.

3. Under
the circumstance, there is no substance in the present application
and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

[M.R.SHAH,J]

*dipti

   

Top