Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2085 (DEL)

MARGRA INDUST. LTD v. DIR

2006-11-14

J.P.SINGH, MUKUL MUDGAL

body2006
MUKUL MUDGAL, J. ( 1 ) THE last order dated 10. 11. 2006 shows that the order of this court dated 8. 9. 2006 to furnish bank guarantee as per order dated 11. 5. 2006 and 4. 5. 2006 has not been complied with and the petitioner who is present affirms this position. The said orders of this Court read as follows :"the interim order is subsisting in favour of the petitioner. It was continued upon furnishing a bank guarantee. It appears that the bank guarantee has lapsed and that the petitioner had not renewed the bank guarantee in this writ petition. It is also interesting to note that two other companion petitions are also pending in this court and the interim orders are continuing in these petitions upon furnishing of bank guarantee which bank guarantees are said to be alive. Considering the conduct of the petitioner in these petitions the petitioner is directed to deposit the amount covered by the bank guarantee before the next date of hearing. List on 11th May, 2006. Mr. Deepak Khosla, the Managing Director of the petitioner is required to remain present on the next date of hearing. ( 2 ) WHILE admitting the writ petition the petitioner was permitted to clear the goods worth Rs. 28 lakhs though demurrage were claimed by the respondent No. 6 to the tune of Rs. 50 lakhs. The Court permitted the petitioner to clear the goods subject to deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs with respondent No. 6 within two weeks and after furnishing a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 15 lakhs in favour of respondent No. 6 within the said period. The petitioner had cleared the goods and deposited the amount and also furnished the bank guarantee. It appears that since 2001, the bank guarantee has not been renewed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the C. M. No. 10447/2001 was moved in this Court with the following prayers:-" (i) discharge the bank guarantee or in alternative expedite the final disposal of the petition. (ii) pass such other or further order (s) as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. "according to the counsel for the petitioner, by order dated 12th december, 2001, the said application was allowed and thus the bank guarantee was not required to be renewed. The order dated 12th December, 2001 reads as follows:-"heard. (ii) pass such other or further order (s) as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. "according to the counsel for the petitioner, by order dated 12th december, 2001, the said application was allowed and thus the bank guarantee was not required to be renewed. The order dated 12th December, 2001 reads as follows:-"heard. Let the writ petition appear on 16th January, 2002 for final hearing in the category of 'after Notice Miscellaneous Matters'. CM stands disposed of. "we are unable to read in the above order any direction allowing the prayer of the petitioner to relieve the petitioner from their obligation to furnish the bank guarantee. In fact the alternate prayer for expediting the hearing for final disposal was granted which clearly indicated that the prayer for discharge of bank guarantee was declined. Accordingly, we are of the view that the petitioner must furnish the bank guarantee of Rs. 15 lakhs within eight weeks to the satisfaction of the Registrar of this Court, failing which the interim order is liable to be vacated and the writ petition may be dismissed. List on 8th September, 2006. As directed vide order dated 4th May, 2006, Mr. Deepak Khosla, Managing director of the petitioner is present in person. His presence is dispensed with. ( 3 ) AT the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, last opportunity is granted to the petitioner to furnish a Bank Guarantee as per the order dated 11. 5. 2006 on or before 9. 10. 2006. In case the Bank Guarantee is not furnished within the extended time, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. List for hearing on 18. 10. 2006 ( 4 ) IT is stated that due to bereavement in the family of a member of the staff, the Director has gone to attend some ceremony. The learned counsel for the appellant is also not present. List on 14th November, 2006. However, it is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted on the next date and in case, there is no appearance on behalf of the appellant on the next date and bank guarantee is not furnished before the next date, the writ petition shall stand dismissed in default. List on 14th November, 2006. However, it is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted on the next date and in case, there is no appearance on behalf of the appellant on the next date and bank guarantee is not furnished before the next date, the writ petition shall stand dismissed in default. ( 5 ) CONSEQUENTLY since bank guarantee has not been furnished even up to date and the petitioner had cleared goods on the basis of furnishing of bank guarantee and there have been persistent defaults in complying with the directions of this Court for furnishing the lapsed bank guarantee, the writ petition stands dismissed.