Bombay High Court
Rpw Projects Pvt.Ltd.(Formerly Known ... vs Iron Trangle Limited on 28 August, 2019
Bench: S.C. Dharmadhikari, G.S. Patel
suresh S2M-NMA-719.2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.719 OF 2019
IN
APPEAL NO.227 OF 2019
IN
COMPANY PETITION NO.1296 OF 2015
RPW Projects Pvt. Ltd. .... Applicant
In the matter between
RPW Projects Pvt. Ltd. .... Appellant
Vs.
Iron Triangle Ltd. (formerly known as
Backbone Enterprise Ltd.) .... Respondent
Mr. Vishal Jathar i/by MDP & Partners for the
Applicant/Appellant.
Ms Aparna Devkar i/by M.P. Vashi & Associates
for the Respondent.
CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &
G.S. PATEL, JJ.
DATE : AUGUST 28, 2019 P.C:
1. On a praecipe moved today by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent for speaking to Minutes of the Order dated 14-8-2019 passed in this notice of motion, the typographical errors in the said order are corrected as under:-
(a) In the 11th line on page 2, the sentence "All that has not happened simply because Page 1 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2019 20:50:31 ::: suresh S2M-NMA-719.2019.doc this Court allowed the applicant/appellant before us to deposit some amount and pay the balance by post-dated cheques."
stands corrected to read as under:-
"All that has happened simply because the appellant/applicant filed Consent Terms dated 20-3-2019 and agreed to pay the balance amount by one (1) post-dated cheque."
(b) Like wise, in the very next sentence commencing from the 13th line on page 2, the words "cheques are" and "these cheques" stand corrected to read as "cheque is"
and "this cheque", respectively. Similarly, while the words "cheques are" - appearing in the 2 nd line from top on page 3 - stand corrected to read as "cheque is", the words "these post-dated cheques" - appearing in the 3rd line of para 2 on page 3 - stand corrected to read as "this post-dated cheque".
2. Consequent to above corrections of the typographical errors, the order dated 14-8-2019 to be read as under:-
"1. Having heard both sides on this notice of Page 2 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2019 20:50:31 ::: suresh S2M-NMA-719.2019.doc motion, we do not find that every single consequence of the order of the learned single Judge being not complied with should never visit the appellant/original respondent before us. In other words, once there was a default in complying with the initial consent arrangement of 11-9-2017, the later order of the learned single Judge of 14-2-2019 and the order of the Division Bench of 20-3-2019 in this Appeal, the appellant/original respondent in the Company Petition should not be visited with the consequence, particularly of winding up. Now, by a self-operative order, in default, the Company Petition was to stand admitted, duly advertised and the Official Liquidator attached to this Court was to step in as Provisional Liquidator. All that has happened simply because the appellant/applicant filed Consent Terms dated 20-3-2019 and agreed to pay the balance amount by one (1) post-dated cheque. Now the post-dated cheque is in possession of the original petitioner/respondent to this Appeal but they have not encashed this cheque. If they present the same for encashment, that is permissible for they have waited till today (14-8-2019). Mr. Kamat, appearing for the applicant/ appellant in support of this notice of motion, Page 3 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2019 20:50:31 ::: suresh S2M-NMA-719.2019.doc however, says that the appellant is trying his best to dispose of one immovable property and pay back the balance amount. Today the post-dated cheque is bound to be dishonoured. He requests that let the same be not presented by the respondent for a further period. Mr. Kamat says that this should not be done till 31-10-2019. The counsel appearing for the respondent has no instructions in this regard.
2. We, therefore, reject the request of Mr. Kamat to modify the orders, particularly of the Division Bench dated 20-3-2019 and direct that this post- dated cheque should not be presented till 30-9-2019. However, we, in the facts peculiar to this case and this order not being treated as a precedent, direct that the self-operative order of the learned single Judge and particularly the directions which were to operate in default of compliance with the Consent Terms, shall not be effective till 30-9-2019. The notice of motion is disposed of. No further extension will be granted. The Registry shall not take any notice of motion with identical prayers on the file of this Appeal."
3. There being no other typographical error or Page 4 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2019 20:50:31 ::: suresh S2M-NMA-719.2019.doc ambiguity pointed out in the said order, the praecipe dated 27-8-2019 is disposed of by taking the same with the annexures thereto on record.
(G.S. PATEL, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) Page 5 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2019 20:50:31 :::