Heard Mrs.Soparkar, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant.
Mr.G.C.Ray, learned Counsel for the respondent Company who is served with the advance copy of this application has not remained present. On 21.12.2000, this Court disposed of two petitions, namely Company Petition No. 190 of 1999 and Company Petition No. 128 of 1998 by common order in view of the understanding arrived at between the parties. Mrs. Soparkar, learned Counsel states that she in fact appeared in Company Petition No. 190 of 1999 when the order was passed. It, therefore, appears that common order was passed due to inadvertance. Be that as it may, the grievance voiced in this application filed in Company Petition No. 190 of 1999 is to the effect that the respondent Company has failed to carry out its obligations recorded in the said order by not replacing the cheques by demand draft and has also not paid the amount of interest of Rs. 12000/-. Since liberty was granted in the said order to revive the petition in case of default, I am of the opinion that the original petition is required to be revived in view of the fact that the respondent Company has committed default in fulfilling its obligations to pay the amount due to the applicant.
In the result, this application is allowed. Company Petition No. 190 of 1999 is revived. To be placed before the Court taking up such matters. This application accordingly stands disposed of.
(K.R.Vyas,J.) sonar/-