Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 986 (RAJ)

In Re, Indo Engineering (Kota) Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation) v. .

2004-07-16

S.K.KESHOTE

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - The Maharashtra State Electricity Board filed this application under section 456 read with section 468 of the Companies Act, 1956 and rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, read with Order 9, rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for setting aside the ex parte order dated April 3, 2002, in S.B. Company Application No. 12 of 1998. 2. S. B. Company Application No. 12 of 1998 has been decided on April 3, 2002, and the Maharashtra State Electricity Board is directed to make payment of Rs. 20,84,824 with interest at the rate of 18 per cent. per annum from the due date within a period of one month to the official liquidator of M/s. Indo Engineering (Kota) Private Limited. The cost has also been ordered to be paid to the applicant as assessed by the court. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the application. 4. From the documents annexures A2, A3, A4 and A5, I am satisfied that the Maharashtra State Electricity Board was not negligent in contesting the matter. It engaged the advocate and for the reasons best known to him he has not appeared in the matter when the same was called for hearing. The aforesaid documents are the correspondence between the advocate and the Maharashtra State Electricity Board wherefrom, it is to be stated at the cost of repetition, time and again the Board was ascertaining the stage of the matter. In case timely information would have been received I am sure and confident that the Maharashtra State Electricity Board would not have left the matter unattended. The Maharashtra State Electricity Board has made out a good and sufficient cause and ground for setting aside of the order passed ex parte against it by the court on April 3, 2002. 5. Accordingly, this application succeeds and the same is allowed. The order dated April 3, 2002, is recalled and S. B. Company Application No. 12 of 1998 is restored to its original number. 6. In the facts of this case there shall be no order as to costs. *******