Skip to content


Harikishan and Vijaysingh Mansinghka Vs. Shri Mahadeo Cotton Mills Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCompany
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberD.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 4 of 1978
Judge
Reported in1978WLN(UC)518
AppellantHarikishan and Vijaysingh Mansinghka
RespondentShri Mahadeo Cotton Mills Ltd.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile..........1977; on which date the bench was not formed. it is not the case of the appellant that by that date steps for requisite advertisement were taken on behalf of the appellant. the case then again came before the learned single judge on 15th of july, 1977 on which date a request was made on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant for adjournment to comply with the order of this court in the matter of publication of the requisite advertisement. the learned counsel for the caveator on that day objected to the grant of adjournment but despite that the learned single judge in the interest of justice granted last adjournment to the petitioner. despite the fact that the last adjournment was given no steps were taken for compliace of the order dated 15-7-1977. ultimately the case came.....
Judgment:

M.L. Joshi, Actg. C.J.

1. Heard Mr. A.L. Mehta the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.C. Maheshwari, the learned Counsel for the Caveator. This Court by its order dated 21st of January, 1977, directed the appellant that the petition for winding up shall be advertised by publication in the Rajasthan Rajpatra and so also in a daily paper of English, The Hindustan Times and in a daily paper of Hindi viz. the Rajasthan Patrika and the date was fixed as 19.4 1977. No steps were taken in compliance of the order dated 21st of January, 1977. The case came up before the learned Single Judge on 22nd of April, 1977 From the perusal of the record it appears that till that day no steps were taken in that behalf which fact is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the appellant before us. The case was fixed for 3rd of May, 1977; on which date the Bench was not formed. It is not the case of the appellant that by that date steps for requisite advertisement were taken on behalf of the appellant. The case then again came before the learned Single Judge on 15th of July, 1977 on which date a request was made on behalf of the learned Counsel for the appellant for adjournment to comply with the order of this Court in the matter of publication of the requisite advertisement. The learned Counsel for the caveator on that day objected to the grant of adjournment but despite that the learned Single Judge in the interest of justice granted last adjournment to the petitioner. Despite the fact that the last adjournment was given no steps were taken for compliace of the order dated 15-7-1977. Ultimately the case came up before the Court on 25th of July, 1977 on which date the learned Single Judge after perusing the previous proceeding of the case came to hold that despite opportunity being given for compliance with the order of the Court dated 21st of January, 1977, the petitioner did not comply with the said order, and, there was no sufficient cause fir grant of further adjournment. In this view of the matter the learned Single Judge dismissed the winding up petition.

2. Mr. A.L. Mehta the learned Counsel for the appellant urges before us that the time for which adjournment was given to the petitioner on 15.7.77 was not sufficient to comply with the order. We are unable to agree with this contention Previously sufficient opportunities were given but the petitioner did not avail of those opportunities. On. 15.7.77 the learned Single Jndge specifically pointed out that the last adjournment was being given although there was objection on behalf of the learned Counsel for the caveator to the grant of adjournment. Even then the petitioner did not avail the last opportunity. The learned Counsel for the appellant now makes a grievance that the time given in the last opportunity was not sufficient. We are not impressed with this argument. The learned Single Judge has rightly disallowed further adjournment in the fact and circumstances of the case. We are, therefore, constrained to dismiss this appeal in limini.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //